The URL can be used to link to this page

04-23-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday,ApriI23,2001 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - April 9, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan - Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Amendment Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP Address: Block 5 and Block 9, Outlots F and M, Hidden Lakes' PUD No. 74, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of 7 single family homes on Block 5, and 10 single family villa homes on Block 9, Outlots F and M. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings IV. Other Business A. Discussion of General Mills EA W B. Joint Meeting with City Council on May 21,2001 V. AdjQurnment . I . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 9, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 9, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Purpose: leese, Rasmussen Lisa Wittman. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoff and Shaffer. Also present were City Planner Dan Olson and Recording I. Approval of Minutes - March 26,2001 Planning Commis . Rasmussen stated she was not listed in the minutes as being p 26, 2001 meeting. was present at the March Pentel stated that on page 2, the fourth paragraph, se "Pentel stated that when the Planning Commission h the commissioner that presents to the council to the final decision." ence should be changed to read, unanimous decisions it is common for the issues that were raised along with a>VED by Groger, seconded by McAlee 1IIIfl501 minutes with the above correction 'on carried unanimously to approve the March 26, II. Informal Public Hearing - Use Permit (CU87-01) Applicant: Address: is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a cellular e monopole on the Golden Valley Historical Society property. City Planner D ferred to his memo dated April 4, 2001. He showed the general location and the proposed site Is on explained that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a cellular telephon'e monopole on the Golden Valley Historical Society property. He stated the subject property is zoned Institutional (1-1). He explained that the City is in the process of revising the telecommunications ordinance and that right now the Golden Valley Zoning Code does not specifically allow this type of use as either a Permitted or as a Conditional Use. However, Section 11.46, Subd. 4(H) states, "Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are reasonably compatible with the uses specifically described in subdivision three, may be permitted as a Conditional Use in any of the four Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts. Olson stated that the applicant would like to use this provision to _PlY for a Conditional Use Permit for this antenna monopole. 11 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 9, 2001 Page 2 .. . Pentel asked as the Planning Commission has been looking at changing the telecommunications ordinance, would this zoning district still be an appropriate place for monopoles. Olson stated that he believed so and that the thing that drove changing the ordinance was to allow monopoles in areas where they are not currently allowed, which are in some cases Institutionally zoned districts. McAleese referred to item number 3 abandoned, it shall be removed wi long time for something that's be read and that time period cou be monopole would fall on awes approval. McAleese stated he about allowing this conditional use under the catch all category and questioned the tim 0 revising the conditional use ordinance. Olson stated that the City Attorney recommended puttin r the catch all category and that a consultant is looking at the ordinance and he hoped ee ft by fall. McAleese stated he's concerned about creating an exception to the code and doingi y where he's not sure we have guidelines that will allow us not to allow exceptions that are 0 a slightly different nature that come forward in the future. He stated that based upon the list of conditions, he doesn't think this is a compatible use. antenna monopoles as o feetirt height. The gthe monopole will Olson stated that the Golden Valley Zoning Code defines these cellular pho "Essential Services - Class II". He stated that the monopole could note applicant is proposing an 85-foot high monopole and the base station a occupy an area of approximately 225 square feet. Olson stated that the monopole meets all the applicable setbac 50-foot rear yard requirement. The applicant is proposing that t yard property line in order to be less intrusive visually on G on the property as possible. Olson stated that the appli Appeals to request a variance from this setback requi , with the exception of the e be 36 feet from the rear ey oad and to keep it as far back going before the Board of Zoning he Institutional (1-1) Zoning District. Olson discussed the factors for consideration an approval of the monopole listed in his memo a any other communication systems. He state the monopole will not cause any interfere s that would be made part of any Item number 10 regarding interference with t submitted a letter in which they state that . f conditions where it states that if the monopole is ths. He stated that that seems to be an exceptionally one . Olson stated he based this on other ordinances he's d. Pentel asked if the financial burden of removing the ted that language could be added to the conditions of Shaffer stated that the proposed monopole is 85 feet tall and that it's 65 feet away from the existing building and 65 feet away from power lines to the south. He questioned if it would need to be further away or if the utility company would need to look at this in case it were to fall over. Olson stated that he's been told by providers and engineers that these poles have never fallen over. Shaffer asked if these poles have been designed for co-location. Olson stated that would be a question for the applicant. . f I . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission <<i1 9, 2001 e3 Garrrett Lysiak, P.E., Owl Engineering discussed his report dated March 28, 2001. He stated the first step in the process was to evaluate the present Owest system coverage to determine if the proposed tower is needed to provide the required system coverage levels or if any other existing structures in the immediate area might provide the needed coverage. He explained the next step in the process is to review other potential existing structures that could be used instead of con ing a newtower in the area. The other sites considered were: NSP transmission line poles, A ers used by KDIZ, Industrial property near Golden Vally Road and Douglas Drive and th wer. Lysiak stated he did an interference study using the FCC frequency database an at no interference is predicted to be generated. He stated that these monopoles are v I and are designed not to fall down and if they were to break, they would break in the d over themselves. He suggested having something written in the ordinance about co-I a abandonment Pentel opened the inform II, Radio Frequency Engineer for for one additional co-location. Pentel asked about co-location and if Owest co-locate Owest Wireless, stated that the proposed application Pentel asked if the co-Iocater would pay rent to information and couldn't discuss the specifics eoger asked about the equipment at th cabinets approximately 5 to 6 feet tall a II replied yes, but stated it was company Mitchell stated that there would be 2 Shaffer asked if the power comp site. Mitchell stated no concerns n ncerns about the tower being located at the proposed n expressed to them. Bruce Lee, 1100 Ida ted he's concerned about a tower being less than a block away from his house and hav' everyday. He also stated he's concerned about the power lines being close to the tower a ssible radiation waves that would be given off. Lysiak stated thatthe FCC has clearly de d th zards of radiation and as part of the licensing they have to comply with the standards. He s t people would have to come within a very close distance to the power source for it to be a hazard CJ that the antenna being proposed is 85 feet off the ground, he didn't see this as a concern for radiation. Olson stated that the health effects have not been proven and according to Federal law cities can't zone these towers out because of the possible radiation hazards. Ardis Paulson, 1001 Idaho, stated she already has problems with interference on her T.V. and radio and is concerned about the monopole causing further interference. Lysiak stated that the Paulson's should talk directly with the radio station regarding any interference she is experiencing. He stated that the monopole being proposed will be of such high frequency and so high up that it shouldn't cause any eterference. McAleese stated it would be a good idea, as a condition, to require Owest to resolve any complaints. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 9, 2001 Page 4 . Bruce Lee, 1100 Idaho Avenue, stated that it should matter that other locations in the area don't want the tower, and some of the neighbors don't want it. Don Anderson, 3030 Scott, Corporate Secretary of the Golden Valley Hist purchased the church in 1996 for the purpose of turning it into a museu privately owned corporation; it is not a public property. He stated that t voted 7 to1 to enter into an agreement with Qwest for a 3D-year Ie Historical Society considerably in their renovation plans. He stat will be in the back corner and will be screened and will blend in unobtrusive as possible. Pentel closed the informal pu Society, stated they ed they are a the Historical Society e income will help the Ie and the equipment . ere to make it as Pentel asked if the proposed location is an area that th stated it was, but there would still be enough room to e for snow storage. Anderson r snow storage. Hoffman asked who would maintain the monop stated Qwest would do the.maintenance. Hoffman asked about people accessing th not accessible and the first peg is twelve e I stated there are climbing pegs, but they are. round. Pentel asked if there is going to be wouldn't be any additionallightin allighting. Mitchell stated as far as security there McAleese asked if the His Mitchell stated the st ciety had looked at the option of putting the pole on the steeple. enough. There was discussio tower were to aba be reworded to a condition number 0 . abandonment of the tower and what would happen to the co-locator if the ed and if the co-locator should become the new owner and if the CUP should ese issues. It was decided to delete the words "whenever possible" in Shaffer asked if a CUP is granted, is it granted to Qwest or to the property. McAleese stated it would be granted to the property. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the construction of a cellular telephone monopole on the Golden Valley Historical Society property. . t .utes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission iI 9, 2001 Page 5 III. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU88-01) Applicant: Qwest Wireless Purpose: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use P telephone monopole on the American Legion construct a cellular Address: 200 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, MN City Planner Dan Olson referred to his memo dated April 4, 200 the proposed site plan. Olson explained that the applicant' construct a cellular telephone monopole on the Americ property is zoned Institutional (1-3). Olson showed a proposing a 70-foot high monopole, which would be i the proposed monopole meets all applicable set Code. ed the general location and Ing a Conditional Use Permit to erty. He stated the subject e proposal and stated the applicant is an existing light pole. Olson stated that t requirements as defined in the Zoning Antel asked why this monopole doesn't ~equency Engineer for Qwest Wireles different kind of technology is used. y antennas on it. David Mitchell, Radio Ince it's on a utility pole and closer to the ground a Garrett Lysiak, P.E., Owl Engine complexity and potential con . the other sites considered inc the City water tower. ed that this tower won't have co-location on itdue to the enance problems posed by this type of installation. He stated oy Scouts building, Breck School, nearby office buildings and Pentel opened the' hearing. hearing. Hearing and seeing no one she closed the informal public Shaffer stated t meets the setback . like a good proposal, it's not near residential areas, it's unobtrusive and it Rasmussen stated there are several unscreened dumpsters on this site. Olson stated he would look into this. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to approve the construction of a cellular telephone monopole on the American Legion property with the removal of the first condition listed in Olson's memo dated April 4, 2001. . ., Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 9, 2001 Page 6 . IV. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU17-08) Applicant: Lions Park Development, LLC Address: 7001 Harold Avenue, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the mai create five new lots from the one existing lot that 0 land in order to 6,313 square feet. City Planner Dan Olson referred to his memo dated April 4, 2001. the proposed site plan. Olson explained that the applicant is re (1.29 acres) site be subdivided into 5 lots. Olson stated that all setback requirements. He stated the City Engineer has re and that that has been incorporated into the site plan. he general location and the 56,313 square foot osed lots meet all the additional 1 0 feet of right of way Shaffer asked what the rear yard setback requiremen depth. Olson referred to the three conditions th proposed lot subdivision. on explained that it is 20% of the lot ends be placed on the approval of the Pentel asked who determines what the Rec. Commission. n fees are. Olson stated it is the Open Space an. Pentel asked if these are bigger meeting. at was proposed at the last planning commission Marshall Kieffer, 8815 West bigger, but the corner ho plans. Lot 5 shows has submitted a tr for training. nt, St. Louis Park, stated that the center three houses would be not be. He stated that he wanted to make a correction on the the front, it really should be 58 feet across the front. He stated he plan and is making a donation of the building to the fire department Shaffer stated h rned about the houses being built to the limits shown on the plans and if people want to add ks or additions it would then require a variance. He stated he'd like to present as a condition to the proposal that these limits are planned into the house when it's designed. Kieffer stated that they are going to have more of an "L" shape design and won't go all the way to the rear yard setback. Kieffer showed a picture of what the homes might possibly look like. Pentel.opened the informal public hearing. Helene Johnson, 240 Kentucky Avenue N., stated she is concerned aboutthe proposed homes. havin. cable access because she has had problems connecting to cable. She is also concerned about the landscaping and silt fence shown on the plans and questioned the timeline of the construction of these homes. f' Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission _il9, 2001 e7 Kieffer stated the silt fence is required by the City during construction to catch garbage and debris and will be removed as the project is finished. Kieffer explained that as far as landscaping, they don't have restricted covenants, but there is a $5,000 landscaping package. Kieffer stated that the construction would begin at the end of June 2001 and would end approximately 12 to 14 months later. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Purpose: y additions or decks ore the Board of e this is a subdivision ision requirements. Shaffer asked if a condition could be attached to the approval that wo to be within the limits that are shown on the plans so they wouldn't Zoning Appeals with variance requests in the future. McAleese s they couldn't add conditions to it, as long as the applicant meet Groger stated that the date listed on Olson's memo in con be dated March 19,2001. ber three on the site plans, should MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Groger and m subdivision of the main parcel of land in order t d unanimously to approve the w lots from the one existing lot. . Informal Public Hearing - Genera Applicant: Address: 7001 Harold n Valley, MN , esting to change the General land Use Plan Map for the ols and Religious Facilities to low Density Residential. McAleese stated he and about not hav' bout institutional land being eliminated and changed to residential Ide for institutional uses. Olson stated ets use for churches ests for 3 to 4 acres for institutional uses and suggested allowing a conditional ercial areas. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Eck,. seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the General land Use Plan Map amendment for the. property from Schools and Religious Facilities to low Density Residential. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 9, 2001 Page 8 .t . VI. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning (Z017-03) Applicant: Lions Park Development, LLC Address: 7001 Harold Avenue, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a rezoning oOhe pro Residential. titutional(I-1) to Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing public hearing. el closed the informal MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Hoffman and motion the property from Institutional (1-1) to Residential. ously to approve the rezoning of Groger attended the last City Coun . development Authority, City Council, Board o. nd stated they discussed the Hidden Lakes EAW. VII. Reports on Meetings of the Housi Zoning Appeals and other Mee . VIII. Other Business A. Approval of the 20 Don Taylor, Finane Taylor passed ou ented the review of the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Project. alysis of past years projects in comparison to projects for this CIP. Eck asked w stated the only ding was shown for the TIF that was approved at the last meeting. Taylor uded in the introduction is the public improvements related to those projects. Pentel referred to page 8 of the CIP. She asked about the Capital Improvement Fund used for Public Works purposes. Taylor stated that money is used for Public Works improvements, including equipment, improvements to buildings and financing part of the pavement management program. Groger inquired about the 4-year computer replacement schedule referred to on page 28. He stated that $75,000 seemed like a lot of money for computer and printer replacement. Taylor stated that included software, cabling and adding new computers. . I ' Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission .i19,2001 e9 Pentel inquired about the $35,000 cost for holiday lights on Winnetka referred to on page 86. Taylor stated that costs include receptacles and underground wiring. McAleese asked if that were something City staff could do. Taylor stated it is going to have to be done by an electrical contractor. Pentel referred to page 90 of the CIP. She asked about the $250,000 cost to remodel and connect two departments and asked when the City Hall building was built. Taylor state . was built in 1959 and remodeled in 1989-90. He stated that the two departments need to be due to the increase in staff. Pentel referred to p e 151 regarding the inventorying of natural resources. She stated it was unclear what was going to be included in the inventory and if it was going to be used by the Environmental Commission. Taylor stated it's a natural resource inventory and management plan and everything will be looked at including, ponds, streams, trees, etc. The City will be applying for a grant to do this work. McAleese asked if this natural resource information would be added to the GIS system. Taylor stated it would be. y lake Trail edication fee, which will Pentel commented that on page 102, she was glad to see the $6 improvement project. Taylor stated that Hidden lakes will be go toward this project. Groger asked why the parking project at Scheid Park re Taylor stated that the project is controversial and has the sale of the house of the neighbor next to the lot t Hoffman inquired about the raising of the golf financed 100% by the golf course fees. It pa .85,000 towards park and recreation pro Pentel inquired about the pedestrian 134. Taylor stated the amount lis work. age 106 will be put off for 4 years. off or now. They are also waiting for ght. . aylor stated that the golf course is 'ons, capital improvement and an additional ns on Highway 55 at Rhode Island referred to on page ort includes this pedestrian connection and intersection Pentel referred to page 136 signs along Winnetka ar Winnetka Avenue streetscape. She stated that all of the Eck inquired about t going to be any w Council has asked collector stre nd netka project referred to on page 143. He asked why there wasn't een Pennsylvania and Winnetka until 2003. Taylor stated the City eering department for ideas on how to deal with laurel Avenue as a me up with ways of dealing with traffic and pedestrians. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 9, 2001 Page 10 . . . Pentel referred to the Wisconsin Avenue control structure on page 152. She asked if it will be canoeable when the project is done and if the Bassett Creek Water Commission is going to help pay for this project. Taylor stated the Bassett Creek Water Commission wouldn't be paying for this project because it is mainly being done to help control the flooding on the golf course. He stated he didn't know if it would be canoeable, but said he'd check on it. D. approve the 2001 - MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unani 2005 Capitol Improvement Program. B. Discussion of Planning Commission ethics information fro Orleans Shaffer handed out information he received at the National the author of the article to see what he suggests readi information and they could. discuss more at the first m ference. He suggested contacting d he would gather more C. Discussion of joint meeting with the City Revisions ss PUD and other Zoning Code Olson stated he spoke with the Mayor a Ordinance and the Zoning Code on the suggested having the City Attorney would be sufficient. Rasmussen why the PUD and Zoning Code w sted have a joint meeting to discuss the PUD . ight as a Planning Commission meeting. She .also ing. McAleese stated he didn't think an hour meeting wou be helpful to know some background information and en the way they were. ing Commission Meeting The May 28,2001 PI discussion about everyone with the ission Meeting is cancelled due to Memorial Day. There was 14 meeting to May 7. Olson stated he would look into it and contact 'ng dates. IX. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. . . 1 . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendment No.1, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, Hidden Lakes Development, LP, Applicant Date: April 17 , 2001 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Hidden lakes Development (HlD) has proposed to amend Hidden lakes PUD No. 74 in order to allow for the creation of seven single-family lots on the peninsula and ten golf villa (single-family) lots along the northeast corner of the development adjacent to Wirth Golf Course. The existing PUD permit for Hidden lakes now allows one single family home on the peninsula (Block 5) and 1 two-family carriage home (two total units) on Block 9 ~ith the possibility of constructing 5 carriage homes (10 total units) on Outlot M. I am attachlng a copy of the overall site plan for Hidden lakes that indicates the location of Block 5, Block 9, and Outlot M. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PUD PERMIT Hidden lakes PUD No. 74 was approved by the City Council on December 16, 1997. The terms of the PUD approval are outlined in the attached PUD Permit. The Permit is divided into several sections. The first section consists of a master permit with terms and conditions affecting the entire PUD. There are several sub-permits with terms and conditions affecting only portions of the PUD. There are also attachments to the permit that are identified in the permit. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission study the PUD permit in order to understand the existing terms under which Hidden lakes PUD No. 74 can operate. The two proposed amendments to the Hidden lakes PUD No.7 4 will require changes to several sections of the existing PUD permit. First, the master permit ind icates that the peninsula (currently lot 1, Block 5) may be used only for one single-family home. Block 9, lots 1 and 2 are designated for one two-unit carriage home. The first sub-permit found on page 10 indicates that the carriage homes are identified for development on Block 9, lots 1 and 2 and on Outlot M that is adjacent and north of Block 9, lots 1 and 2. The sub-permit found on page 12 deals with Block 5, lot 1 (the peninsula). This sub-permit indicates that only the existing single-family home on the peninsula is permitted. It states that an amendment to the sub-permit to allow additional development may be applied for when the conditions found in the minutes of a Special Meeting of the City Council from June 19, 1997 are met. These minutes outline the conditions under which the City Council will consider further development on the peninsula. The sub-permit found on page 16 indicates that Outlot M may be developed for up to ten additional carriage home units. However, an amendment . to the sub-permit must be made in order for Outlot M to be developed for any type of housing. DESCRIPTIONS OF AMENDMENTS This section of the staff report will deal with each of the two portions of the proposed PUD amendment. Golf Villa Homes on Block 9, Lots 1 and 2; and on OutlotM HLD had decided not to construct carriage homes as originally proposed in 1997. As indicated in the PUD permit, approval for the construction of one carriage home (two-units total) was approved for Block 9, Lots 1 and 2. Construction of five additional carriage homes (ten units) to the north on Outlot M was tentatively planned as indicated on the sub-permit (page 16). In 1997, HLD was not sure of the carriage house design so they did not want to totally commit to the construction of all 12 units. They have now reevaluated the carriage house idea and have decided to not build any carriage homes. The amendment would replat Block 9, Lots 1 and 2 ; and Outlot M into ten lots for the construction of ten golf villa homes. Twenty-five of the golf villa homes have been constructed on Skyline Drive. These units have been very successful and have all been sold. The golf villa homes are single-family homes on smaller lots. In this case, the lots are about 50 ft. wide and 108 ft. deep (about . 5,100 sq. ft. in area). The homes will be about 38 ft. wide and 65 ft. long. Each home will have a two-car garage. Access to the golf villa units will be from a one-way street off Skyline Dr. This short street is located on Outlot K. As indicated in the attached memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, the street will be 20 ft. wide. No parking will be permitted on the street. There will be 8 diagonal parking spaces on the west side of the road for guest parking. As indicated in the Engineer's memo, some changes to the new street will have to be made to allow for emergency vehicle access. There is adequate room to make these changes. The plan will provide for two garage stalls for each unit and two outside parking spaces in front of each garage. There are also 8 guest parking stalls. This parking should provide an adequate number of spaces for these units. Overall, this is a good location for the golf villas. (The lots will actually be constructed along the 13th fairway of Wirth Golf Course). They have proven to be desirable units by howwell they have sold on Skyline Dr. This area was planned for 12 units of carriage home units. The use of this area for golf villa homes is not a dramatic change. It is a reduction in total units in the area by 2. The City Engineer addresses issues related to grading, drainage, and erosion control in his memo. In summary, runoff from proposed Block 2 will be routed to the north into an existing pond on the Courage Center property. Utility services will be from extensions to existing utility mains in the area. A tree preservation plan has been submitted with the preliminary . 2 . design plan for Block 2. It appears that the plan meets the requirement of the new tree preservation ordinance. As indicated in the PUD Permit for Hidden Lakes, there is no additional park dedication required for the development of Outlot M (page 3, No.7). Seven Single-Family Lots on Peninsula HLD is requested that the amendment to the PUD include the replatting of the peninsula to include seven lots for the construction of seven single-family homes. The attached plans indicate the proposed layout of the peninsula. When the PUD for Hidden Lakes was approved in 1997, only one lot was approved on the peninsula. The one lot allows for the existing single-family home to remain on the peninsula. The home was built in the late 1950's. The sub-permit (page 12) indicates under what conditions that HLD may .apply for an amendment to allow additional lots on the peninsula. The sub-permit refers. to the City Council minutes from a special meeting held on June 19,1997. In those minutes, HLD agreed not to go forward with development of the peninsula until five conditions are met. These conditions are attached to the PUD permit. The staff has reviewed these five conditions and finds that each has been met. The following is a summary of the conditions and the status: . 1. All environmental and other information related to development on the peninsula has been assembled and provided to the City: The staff has received all information that is necessary related to environmental issues and other matters in order that the application can go forward. Much of this information was provided as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process. (The City Council determined in 1997 that the EAW prepared for the HL development indicated that additional environmental study was not needed for the project to go forward. The EAW included the development of ten lots on the peninsula. The findings indicated that no substantial environmental harm would be caused by the HL development (including the peninsula). Remaining environmental concerns could be addressed through the PUD process.) 2. AU due diligence and all care have been taken to address the issues regarding development on the peninsula including environmental issues: The staff has received the informatton necessary to address development of the peninsula. The staff believes thatthe information that has been submitted shows that the peninsula will be developed in an environmentally responsible manner. . 3. All major grading and infrastructure on Phase I has been successfully completed and the developer has successfully complied with all related conditions of approval and requirements of environmental sensitivity on Phase I: All major grading and infrastructure improvements on Phase I have been completed. HLD has received all necessary approvals and certifications from state agencies regarding cleanup of environmental pollution. 3 . 4. Home building has been successfully completed on at least five lakeshore lots on Phase I. For purposes of this subparagraph "home building" is defined as . completion of all planned site improvements, building construction and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure: According to the Inspections Department, this has been accomplished. 5. Ten of the townhomes have been issued Certificates of Occupancy: According to the Inspections Department, this has been accomplished. The June 19, 1997 minutes also indicate that care should be taken in the development of the peninsula because it is an environmentally sensitive site. The minutes also indicate that when the plans are submitted to develop the peninsula, four criteria shall be used to determine if the plans are adequate. The staff has found that these four criteria have been met. The following are a list of the criteria and staff comments: 1. All lots to be created shall exceed the minimum lot size and the average lot size shall be twice the minimum lot size established by the DNRin shoreland impact areas: Lots within ashoreland impact area must be at least 20,000 sq. ft. in area. In the case of the seven lots proposed for the peninsula, all lots exceed the minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot area and the average size is well over twice the minimum set by the DNR. (See site plans.) Tom Hovey, Area Hydrologist for the DNR, has submitted the attached letter dated March 16,2001. The letter indicates that the DNR has no permitting authority because all construction will be done above the . ordinary high water mark for Sweeney and Twin Lakes. He also indicates that the plans appear to be consistent with the City's shoreland land use controls. 2. The private road be setback at least 50 ft. from the ordinary high water mark: The private road will be at least 50 ft. from the ordinary high water mark except where it nears the bridge. 3. Hidden lakes shall retain the services of a qualified geohydrologist to verify the location and number of seeps and springs and all of these features shall be protected by inclusion within the designated "no impact zone": A geohydrologist was hired and a report was prepared indicating the location of seeps and springs. These are identified on the site plans. The seeps and springs are all located within conservation easements so they will not be affected by construction. 4. The City Engineer shall determine whether the lots to be created have adequate buildable area after all necessary land has been provided to accommodate storm water improvements, environmental easements, restrictions on woodland clearing and all other performance standards contained in the Jeff Oliver memo dated February 13, 1997: The City Engineer is confident that there is adequate room on the peninsula to accommodate seven lots along with necessary easements for improvements such as roads, conservation easements, storm water ponds, and tree preservation areas. . The staff, therefore, has determined that the application for an amended PUD to allow development on the peninsula can go forward. This does not mean that the plans submitted 4 by the HLD will be approved without review. It means that they have provided the City with . the necessary information that allows them to go ahead with the amended PUD application. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, has written a detailed report reviewing the amended PUD for both proposed Block 1 and 2. The memo is heavily weighted to consideration of the peninsula. The Planning staff is not going to repeat Mr. Oliver's comments. The Planning Staff agrees with his statements and they will be made a part of the recommendation from City staff. . . The Planning staff would like to state that the development of the peninsula would be restricted in a manner similar to the lakeshore lots in the other parts of Hidden Lakes. In other words, they will have conservation easements protecting the shoreline of both Twin and Sweeney Lakes. (A copy of the Conservation Easement is attached.) Only canoes or other handle-paddled boats will be allowed in Twin Lake. The size of the docks on Twin and Sweeney Lakes will be restricted in the same manner as the home lots on Sweeney Lake and the east side of Twin Lake. Park dedication for the development of the peninsula must be addressed as outlined in the PUD permit on page 3, number 7. It states that "Ultimate development plans for the peninsula will be shaped by City decisions about park dedication, which may include a trail on a portion of the peninsula, as well as the relative weight that the City chooses to place on specific environmental features, characteristics, or objectives." The June 17, 1997 City Council minutes also repeat that the City has to make a decision about park dedication on the peninsula. The plans for the peninsula do not indicate a public trail or trail easement. The staff does not recommend that a trail run through or across the peninsula for several reasons. First, if there were a trail, it would have to be paved and be separate from the private road serving the seven homes. (The City policy is to separate trails from roadways for safety reasons.) This would mean another 8-9 ft. paved surface and therefore, additional runoff. Second, it would make the proposed lots narrower than they are now shown on the plan. As indicated on the site plan, there is now barely enough room for the building pad, private road and setback area. Third, what would be the destination of the trail at the south end of the peninsula? There is currently a path in that area that runs to the end of Kilarney Dr. The trail that the City now has through the Hidden Lakes development connecting Golden Valley Rd. to Wirth Park and the future Hennepin Park trail already meets that need. Some have discussed an east/west trail across the peninsula for access from Sweeney Lake into Twin Lake. During the boating season that already exists with the water connection between the two lakes. (Incidentally, the bridge between the mainland and the peninsula will allow for canoes under the bridge because certain utility pipes are to be removed. Also, there will be a portage area for canoes around the bridge if the water is too high to get under the bridge.) During the winter months, access to Twin Lake from Sweeney Lake can be made across the Minneapolis Park Board property south of the southernmost lot. The staff is recommending that a cash dedication be made to the City for park dedication. This dedication will be determined at the time the final plat of the Hidden Lakes amendment is approved by the City. It is anticipated that this cash dedication will be used to offset the public improvement costs for the development of the Adeline Lane lot at the south end of Sweeney Lake. This lot is planned to be improved for limited access and fishing on Sweeney Lake. 5 . If there is no north/south trail through the peninsula, the City should reconsider the need for . the dedication of a public trail easement across Outlot J and Island Drive terminating at the west end of the bridge to the peninsula. (This trail is a connection to the existing north/south trail through the center of the HL development.) According to the PUD permit (page 5, No. D., 3), this trail is to be provided to the City and constructed by HLD at the time the peninsula is developed. If the City chooses to keep the trail easement, it would most likely be used for viewing of Twin Lake or fishing from the bridge. It should be noted that the park dedication for the original HLD included the boat launch/park near the concierge building and the trail easement from Golden Valley Rd. to Wirth Park. HLD is responsible for the development and maintenance of these facilities as outlined in the PUD permit. This spring, development of boat launch/park should be completed with the construction of the fishing dock and shelter. As indicated in the March 16,2001 letter from DNR Area Hydrologist Tom Hovey, the development of the peninsula is consistent with the City's Shoreland Management chapter of the zoning code. The staff has also reviewed this proposal in relation to the Shoreland Management chapter and finds that it meets or will meet the requirements. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for proposed Block 1 and Block 2 of Hidden Lakes Amendment No.1. The proposed change to allow 10 golf villa . homes instead of 6 carriage homes (12 units) is not a significant change from the original plan. The golf villas are desirable homes and have sold well. They will fit into this area along the golf course. Block 1 will allow for the construction of seven single-family homes on the peninsula. The PUD permit currently allows one existing single-family home on the peninsula. When the PUD permit for HLD was approved by the City Council in 1997, it required that certain conditions be met prior to allowing HLD to apply for a PUD amendment to allow new homes on the peninsula. (HLD had originally planned between 10-12 homes on the peninsula.) All of these conditions have been met that will allow for HLD to apply for the development. With the restrictions of development listed below, the staff believes that the future development of seven homes on the peninsula is reasonable. The Hidden Lakes site has presented challenges for development due to the topography and other aspects of the site including environmental pollution. However, the City staff has found that HLD has performed responsibly to develop the site in a manner to minimize the negative environmental impacts. HLD has developed a quality housing development that has been seen as an asset to the community. The staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan with the following conditions: 1. The recommendations and findings in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE shall become apart of the recommended approval. . 6 -" . . . 2. The recommendations and findings in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal shall become a part of this approval. This includes providing fire/sprinkler systems on the dwellings in both Block 1 and 2. 3. No physical park dedication will be required as a result of this PUD amendment. A cash dedication to be determined prior to the approval of the final plat shall be assessed. 4. During periods of high water, a portage crossing at the peninsula bridge will be provided. 7 . Memorandum To: Dan Olson, City Planner From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: March 13, 2001 Re: Plan Review Comments PUD Hidden lakes Development . Listed below are my plan review comments for the PUD Hidden lakes Development, Block 1 and Block 2. 1) Fire hydrants identified on the submittal shall be installed in accordance with the city's engineer requirements. 2) The proposed single-family dwellings in Block 1 and Block 2 shall have installed an automatic fire/sprinkler system (NFPA 130). The Installation shall be in accordance with recognized standards. Plans and permits are required. 3) The access roads for Block 1 and Block 2 shall be accessible for fire apparatus in all weather driving condition. The fire access roads shall have a paved surface to meet the supporting loads of the fire apparatus. 4) Provide and install stationary posts and "No Parking Fire lanes" signs in access roads in Block 1, Block 2 and the turn -a- around located in Block 1. The installation of the stationary post and signs shall be in accordance with the City of Golden Valley City Code and the Golden Valley Fire Department Standards. 5) The turn -a- around road for Block 1 should be at 45 foot inside turning radius and the access road shall be minimum 20 feet in width. If you have any questions, please call me at 763-593-8065 . '0 ~" .. . . . Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74 City Council Approval: December 16. 1997 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Project Name: Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74 Location: 4121 Golden Valley Rd. Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 1, Golden Valley Health Center P.U.D. No. 45; Outlots A and B, Golden Valley Health Center P.U.D. No. 45; and Outlot One, Zimmerman Terrace --To be replatted as Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 (legal descriptions used within this permit are those established by the new plat) Address: 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Owners and Addresses: Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership 4121 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN 55422 Minnesota Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation 3915 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN 55422 Minneapolis Clinic Building Company, a Minnesota partnership 4225 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN 55422 Transitional Hospital Corporation, a Delaware corporation 4101 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN 55422 Underlying Zoning: Residential and Institutional (1-3) Permitted Uses: Low density residential uses; medical treatment facility; and parking lots and access roads for adjacent institutional facilities. Per City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 10, this permit consists of a master permit with terms and conditions affecting the entire PUD, one or more sub-permits with terms and conditions affecting only portions of the PUD, and attachments as identified and referenced within the master and sub-permits. , . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Two . Components: A. land Use Component 1. Land use shall be a combination of detached and attached residential units; institutional uses and open space, private access roads and amenities as shown on the attached site plan (Overall site plan prepared by RLK-Kuusisto Sheets C 2-3 dated 8/12/97 and 10/1/97) and summarized as follows: Low Density Residential Uses which may include Single-Family Homes, Townhomes, Villa Homes, and Carriage Homes Two-Family Townhomes Block 4, Lots 1-12 Block 5, Lots 1 Block 6, Lots 1-5 Block 7, Lots 1-4 Block 8, Lots 1-10, 11-30 Block 9, Lots. 1 and 2 Block 10, Lots 1-25 Block 11 J Lots 1-22 Block 12, Lots 1-20 Block 13, Lots 1-19 Continued Medical Treatment Use in existing building and related accessory uses in an existing outbuilding . Block 6, Lot 6 . Parking lots and access to parking lots for adjacent institutional facilities Block 1, Lot 1 Block 3, Lot 1 Concierge Building to provide services to residents of Hidden Lakes Block 2, Lot 1 Easement to public for park and access to Sweeney Lake Outlot K 3. The concierge building shall be constructed in accordance with the attached plan prepared by Barbour/Lardoceur Architects. The use of the building is restricted to providing services to those persons living in, working in or visiting the Hidden Lakes PUD. . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Three 4. Outlot K shall be developed in a manner as indicated on the attached detailed site plan prepared by DSU (Sheet L5 of 14 sheets). This property shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association per easement agreement with the City. 5. Conservation easements will be established which run in favor of the City.in order to create "no touch" zones in specified areas. The clearing of trees or altering of existing vegetation in these areas will be prohibited. On Block 6, access to Twin Lake from Lots 4 and 5 must be by stairway. The stairway must be limited to 4 ft. in width with landing areas no greater than 32. sq. ft. Lots 1, 2, and 3 may gain access to the shoreland with the least intrusive method, including paths or stairways. These stairways shall have the same size limitations as for Lots 4 and 5. No building or grading permits will be issued on any lots where there are to be conservation easements until the conservation easement documents have been recorded. 6. In order to promote awareness of the conservation easements, the developer will be required to place monumentation for these easements. The monumentation shall take the form of 4 in. x 4 in. wooden posts at least three feet in height, with words "Conservation Area" carved into them. There must be at least one monument for each lot. The monumentation shall be in place prior to development and shall be maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners. 7. The City will not require additional dedication for park and open space purposes as part of any future development of Outlot M. Ultimate development plans for the peninsula will be shaped by City decisions about park dedication, which may include a trail on a portion of the peninsula, as well as the relative weight that the City chooses to place on specific environmetnal features, characteristics, or ojbectives. B. Construction 1. Proof of recording for the plat and for all related easement documents must be provided to the City before any construction permits are issued. 2. An as-built survey shall be completed for each zero lot line structure as soon as the foundation is substantially in place. If there is an incomplete match between lot lines and unit walls, the developer shall either relocate the foundation or request City approval of a PUD amendment to replat the affected lots. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for a zero lot line unit that fails to align with an underlying lot boundary. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Four . 3. Except as otherwise specified in the conditions of this permit, all phases of site development shall be subject to the standards, approvals, fees, and other requirements that would arise in connection with a similar project outside of a PUD. 4. After initial construction, whenever any exterior maintenance or improvement of a lot or unit within the development requires any form of City permit, the permit application submittal shall include some form of written permission from the homeowner's association to ensure conformity with applicable standards established by the association. 5. For the construction of the traditional single family houses, there are no City design guidelines as long as City building code requirements are met. 6. The Hidden Lakes Carriage House designs prepared by Dovolis, Johnson and Rugger Architects and dated 8/11/97 shall be attached to the PUD permit as design guidelines. At the time of actual construction of any carriage house, the Inspections staff will determine whether the design specifics for that structure adequately meet the guidelines as to exterior appearance and construction materials. Structures found to be not in keeping with the guidelines shall not be granted building permits until necessary modifications are made as required by the Inspections staff. . 7. The front elevation for the Villa houses and townhouses prepared by Charles Cudd Co. and copyrighted in 1997 shall be attached to the PUD permit as design guidelines. At the time of actual construction for each structure, the Inspections staff will determine whether the design specifics for that structure adequately meet the guidelines as to exterior appearance and construction materials. Structures found to be not in keeping with the guidelines shall not be granted building permits until necessary modifications are made as required by the Inspections staff. 8. The landscaping plan sheets numbered L 1-L 13 prepared by DSU and dated August, 1997 shall be made a part of the approved PUD permit. If the Building Board of Review requires additional changes to the landscaping plan, such changes shall also be made part of the approved permit in narrative form or via an amended plan sheet signed and dated by the City's Chief Building Inspector. 9. Landscaping plans for individual residential lots are not required as part of the PUD permit. 10. No phosphorus fertilizers shall be used on any property within PUD No. 74. . . . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Five 11. Only non-motorized boats may be launched from any properties within PUD No. 74 that are riparian to Twin Lake. Lots 1-5, Block 6 may each have one dock not exceeding two sections of dock in length and approximately 60 sq. ft. in area. There shall be no boat awnings over the docks on Twin Lake. C. Utilities and Gradinq 1. Before any additional grading or utility permits are issued, the developer shall provide the City with acceptable plans, information, and other submittals as identified in all points of the "General Plan Review for Hidden Lakes Planned Unit Development" memo written by Jeff Oliver, P.E., Assistant City Engineer and dated Oct. 16, 1997. 2. During and after construction, the developer shall comply with all instructions outlined in the Oct. 16, 1997 memo from Jeff Oliver, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. (see above) 3. As outlined in the Oct. 16, 1997 Oliver memo, the developer shall submit a security to the City for the construction of public improvements by the developer. 4. At the developer's expense, the developer shall provide a $1,000,000 owner's title insurance policy for the City's easement interests in the property. D. Circulation Plan 1. The internal circulation system shall be as indicated on the attached site plan (Sheet C-2). 2. There shall be a 9 ft. wide bituminous trail (within a 15 ft. wide easement) constructed by the developer for use by the public. This trail shall also be maintained by the developer or by Hidden Lakes property owners. The developer shall place and maintain a sign at or near the concierge building that states that the trail is open to the public. Unless otherwise stipulated by the City, the trail shall be open 24 hours per day. 3. A second public trail easement shall extend across Outlot J and Island Drive terminating at the west end of the bridge to Block 5. This easement shall be provided to the City, and the trail shall be constructed by the developer, at the time Block 5 is further developed. Easement and trail shall be subject to the same requirements as listed in D.2 above, unless otherwise stipulated by the City. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Six . 4. The entire circulation system shaH be maintained by the Hidden Lakes Homeowners Association. 5. Fire lanes shall be established and posted along the private road system as required by the Public Safety Department and in conformity with City Code Section 9.12. 6. All private street names and house numbering shall be approved by the Inspection Department. No changes to street names or numbering may be made without Inspection Dept. approval. E. Subdivision Component 1. No residential building permits shall be issued for lots within Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74 until proof of recording of the plat of "Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74" has been given to the City staff. F. Attachments 1. Overall Site Plan, Sheets C 2-3, prepared by RLK-Kuusisto and dated 8/1/97 and 10/1/97. Where a particular sub-permit identifies specific changes which may be made to this plan, such changes as identified will no require prior approval of other sub-permitees. . 2. Concierge Plan prepared by Barbour/Landoceur Architects and signed and dated by the Director of Planning and Development. 3. Landscape and site amenities plan sheets L-1 to L-13 dated August 1997, and amended plan sheet L-5 signed by the Director of Planning and Development; all prepared by DSU. 4. Hidden Lakes Carriage House designs prepared by Dovolis, Johnson and Rugger Architects and dated 8/11/97. 5 Villa and townhouse plans prepared by Charles Cudd Co. and copyrighted in 1997. 6. The Forest Management Plan for Hidden Lakes Development prepared by Kunde Co. and signed by the Director of Planning and Development. The plan describes the existing forest cover type; the tree protection specifications and techniques; tree disease program; site and lot forest management; and requirements for the inspection, identification and compliance with Tree Preservation specifications for individual lot development. . - . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Seven 7. "General Plan Review for Hidden Lakes Planned Unit Development" memo written by Jeff Oliver, P.E., Assistant City Engineer and dated Oct. 16, 1997. 8. "Articles of Incorporation of Hidden Lakes Community Association", (The Master Association) (draft). This document is attached to the PUD permit only to the extent that it specifies certain provisions which may not be amended without permission from the City of Golden Valley; other provisions not so designated within the document may be amended according to the procedures outlined in the document itself or in state law. If there are any changes to this document, a copy of that change shall be provided to the City. 9. "Master Declaration of Hidden Lakes", (draft). This document is attached to the PUD permit only to the extent that it specifies certain provisions which may not be amended without permission from the City of Golden Valley; other provisions not so designated within the document may be amended according to the procedures outlined in the document itself or in state law. If there are any changes to this document, a copy of that change shall be provided to the City. 10. "Declaration of Hidden Lakes Townhomes (Prototype "Village") (draft). This document is attached to the PUD permit only to the extent that it specifies certain provisions which may not be amended without permission from the City of Golden Valley; other provisions not so designated within the document may be amended according to the procedures outlined in the document itself or in state law. If there are any changes to this document, a copy of that change shall be provided to the. City. 11. "Declaration of Easement for Public Lake Access", (see Section A4 above) (Draft). 12. "Declaration of Easement for Public Access", (see Section A4 above) ( draft). 13. "Conservation Easement (see Section AS above) (draft). 14. "Declaration of Public Trail Easement (see Section 0.2 above) (draft). It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on Oct. 21, 1997. Any changes to the PUD permit for Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 shall require an amendment. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Eight . Hidden Lakes Development ~ _ Limit.t~partnership p ,. [~~ . p Witness: ~ By: Title: Date: O-e-CUYJ~ \~ql Minnesota Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation Witness: By: Title: Date: . Minneapolis Clinic Building Company, a Minnesota partnership Witness: By: Title: Date: Transitional Hospital Corporation, a Delaware corporation Witness: By: Title: Date: . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: Witness: Witness: Witness: Page Eight Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership By: Title: Date: Minnesota Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. , .KCJ.H.7/ .J ~BY: ~ Title: &..e cub.>>-e. ~c:ttn'2. L?lt1J q 1 Date: Minneapolis Clinic Building Company, a Minnesota partnership By: Title: Date: Transitional Hospital Corporation, a Delaware corporation By: Title: Date: Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Eight . Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership Witness: By: Title: Date: Minnesota Society fol" Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation Witness: By: Title: Date: . Minneapolis Clinic Building Company, a Minnesota partnership Witness:1ft ~jd&L.f1Y: ~ Title: Date: Transitional Hospital Corporation, a Delaware corporation Witness: By: Title: Date: . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Eight Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership Witness: By: Title: Date: Minnesota Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation Witness: By: Title: Date: . Minneapolis Clinic Building Company, a Minnesota partnership Witness: By: Title: Date: Witnes : . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: f116 i~~ Witness: IYf 01l~ L Warning: Page Nine City of Golden Valley By: ~~~~/ Mary E~erson, Mayor Date: By: Date: S, City Manager This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. . . . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Location: Legal Description: Owners and Address: Underlying Zoning: Page Ten Sub-Permit for a portion of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 74 Hidden Lakes Development 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota (See Lots and Blocks listed below) Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Single-Family Residential This sub-permit outlines terms and conditions affecting only the property identified above. In any case where there is an apparent conflict between the terms of the sub-permit and the master permit, this sub-permit shall prevail. Land Use Component 1. Permitted uses for the identified properties are as follows: Traditional Single Family Houses Block 4, Lots 1-12 Block 6, Lots 1-5 Block 7, Lots 1-4 Block 8, Lots 1-10 Two-Family Townhomes Block 11, Lots 1-22 Block 12, Lots 1-20 Block 13, Lots 1-20 Single Family Villa Houses Block 8, Lots 11-30 Block 10, Lots 1-25 Block 13, Lots 17-19 Two Family Carriage Houses Block 9, Lots 1 and 2 Outlot M Existing Single Family House Block 5, Lot 1 Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Eleven 2. For all types of residential lots, the dotted line indicated on each lot on the site plan shall represent the permitted building envelope. Construction of any structure may only occur within this envelope. Changes to the building envelope shall require an amendment to this PUD sub-permit. The amendment shall take the form of a revised site plan for the identified property. Witness:~()1\.C. ~ Witness: Witness: Title: Date: 0J1 (...QAY) i>tA I C\C\""1 City of Golden Valley By: Mary E. Anderson, Mayor Date: By: William S. Joynes, City Manager Date: Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. . . . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Eleven 2. For all types of residential lots, the dotted line indicated on each lot on the site plan shall represent the permitted building envelope. Construction of any structure may only occur within this envelope. Changes to the building envelope shall require an amendment to this PUD sub-permit. The amendment shall take the form of a revised site plan for the identified property. Witness: Witness: Witness: Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership By: Title: Date: City of Golden Valley By: ~~E~~~ Date: /2^ - rq -0 By: s, City Manager Date: Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Twelve . Sub-Permit for a portion of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 74 location: Hidden Lakes Development 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota legal Description: Block 5, Lot 1, Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Owners and Address: Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Underlying Zoning: Single-Family Residential This sub-permit outlines terms and conditions affecting only the property identified above. In any case where there is an apparent conflict between the terms of the . sub-permit and the master permit, this sub-permit shall prevail. land Use Component 1. Permitted uses for the identified property are one single family home and any related accessory uses normally permitted by the underlying zoning. 2. An amendment to this sub-permit to allow additional development on Block 5 (the peninsula) may be applied for to the City when the conditions found in the minutes of a Special Meeting of the City Council, June, 19, 1997 are met. These minutes outline the conditions under which the City Council will consider further development on the peninsula. The amendment shall include but not be limited to a revision of the site plan for the identified area. Hidden lakes Development ~ ~ ~mited P'1rt e~ \ ,.:t:~ Witness: 'tM.(. .', . By: Title: Date: QtCP4Y) bJ.u tClC" . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: Witness: ~al~J ~ Page Thirteen City of Golden Valley By: YJ2. 9~ Mary E.~son, Mayor Date: By: Date: Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Fourteen . Sub-Permit for a portion of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 74 Location: Hidden Lakes Development 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 9 and Lot 1, Block 4, Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Owners and Address: Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Underlying Zoning: Single-Family Residential This sub-permit outlines terms and conditions affecting only the property identified above. In any case where there is an apparent conflict between the terms of the . sub-permit and the master permit, this sub-permit shall prevail. land Use Component 1. The developer may place a temporary sales office (module type building) on Lots 1 and 2 Block 9. This building may be at this location for up to one year from the issuance of this PUD permit. A second, temporary sales building (which may be a module type building) may be placed or constructed on Lot 1, Block 4. This building may be placed or constructed only after the temporary sales office on Lots 1 and 2, Block 9 has been removed. This second building may remain on the site until Dec. 31,1999. All such temporary buildings must be approved by the Chief Building Official. Hidden lakes Development ~ ~ ~Limited P nership. ~ ~ , - -. -LlO' Witness ,__M.W___ " '/'I. By: Title: l... L (.., Date: ~~ Iq<q "-1 . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: '1Y'p~ Witness: Page Fifteen City of Golden Valley By: MlJt.~:::n~~~ Date: By: Date: J~111 /1 J I I Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. Hidden lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Sixteen . Sub-Permit for a portion of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 74 Location: Hidden lakes Development 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Legal Description: Outlot M, Hidden lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Owners and Address: Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership 4121 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Underlying Zoning: Single-Family Residential This sub-permit outlines terms and conditions affecting only the property identified above. In any case where there is an apparent conflict between the terms of the . sub-permit and the master permit, this sub-permit shall prevail. Land Use Component 1. Permitted uses for the identified property are two carriage home units. 2. Up to ten additional residential units may be developed at a future date, but only after approval of an amendment to this PUD sub-permit. The amendment shall include but not necessarily be limited to a revised site plan for the identified property. Hidden Lakes Develo G Limited E rtnershi ~ +~u, - -:t1o cu... P Witness. C.' By: Title: Date: Qe~~ 1'0, lC\c\"l . " . . . City of Golden Valley By Ma~~J:~ Date: J;}- '- I CJ '- 9 '7 Witness: '1vIOt1if-@lJ--- By: Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: ..:1tlOJtt ~ Date: Page Seventeen n I City Manager Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Eighteen . Sub..Pennit for a portion of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 74 Location: Transitional Hospital Corporation (THe) 4101 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 6, Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Owners and Address: Transitional Hospital CorpQratic;m. a Delaware corporation 4101 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Underlying Zoning: Institutional (1-3) This sub-permit outlines terms and conditions affecting only the property identified above. In any Gase where there is an apparent conflict between the terms of the !ulr}Jl:l"lIIil allJ UIl:J IlIa~l~I JJ~II"il, 1I1i~ ~ul.J-JJ~Il111l ::s11C::I1I fJlt:vClII. Land Use ComDonent . 1. Minor landscaping and parking lot configuration changes may be made with the approval of the City staff. If staff determines that a proposed change is a significant departure from the approved site plan, an amendment to thisPUD sub-permit shall be required. The amendment shall take the form of a revised site plan for the identified property. Transition H spi Is Corporation, a ~~e e Delaware corooration WilMs{)lhw~d.-6J~y: . ~ ~.- . Trtle: 1\~k 'i J~ Date: Jlcit 11 . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: Page Nineteen City of Golden Valley By: Y;t~PtZJ/4MM/ Mary E. A erson, Mayor Date: Date: Witness: ~CJAlr ~4 ____ By: o Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions,. regulations and ordinances. Hidden lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Twenty . Sub-Permit for a portion of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 74 location: Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology 4225 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Hidden lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Owners and Address: Minneapolis Clinic Building Company, a Minnesota partnership 4225 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Underlying Zoning: Institutional (1-3) This sub-permit outlines terms and conditions affecting only the property identified above. In any case where there is an apparent conflict between the terms of the sub-permit and the master permit, this sub-permit shall prevail. land Use Component . 1. Minor landscaping and parking lot configuration changes to the identified property may be made with the approval of the City staff. If staff determines that a proposed change isa significant departure from the approved site plan, an amendment to this PUD sub-permit shall be required. The amendment shall take the form of a revised site plan for the identified property. Minneapolis Clinic Building Company, a Minnesota partnership Witness:~1 ~BY: Title: Date: . ~ . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: Witness: '1r[Mlf ~. By: Page Twenty-One City of Golden Valley By: Ma~~~o~ ~ Date: Date: Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. , Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Page Twenty-Two . Sub-Permit for a portion of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 74 Location: Courage Center 3915 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley. Minnesota Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Owners and Address: Minnesota Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc. 3915 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley MN 55422 Underlying Zoning: Institutional. (1-3) This sub-permit outlines terms and conditions affecting only the property identified . above. In any case where there is an apparent conflict between the terms of the sub-permit and the master permit, this .sub-permit shall prevail. Land Use Component 1. Minor landscaping and parking lot configuration changes to the identified property may be made with the approval of the City staff. If staff determines that a proposed change is a significant departure from the approved site plan, an amendment to this PUD sub-permit shall be required. The amendment shall take the form of a revised site plan for the identified property. Witness: ~r~ i 6~ Minnesota Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit ::~~~- Title: ~Ur<i1~ ~ctL:5l'L Date: , 'J- - IC) - q 7 . . . . Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Witness: Witness: . :Jf{, f{I1~ Page Twenty-Three City of Golden Valley By: Mlf~~~ Date: By: Date: Warning: This sub-permit does not exempt you from applicable terms of the master permit and all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Golden Valley Road in said City on June 19, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Anderson, Johnson, LeSuer, Micks and Russell. Also present were: Jeanne Andre, Assistant to the City Manager; Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works; Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary. Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary Desiqn Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development Mayor Anderson introduced the agenda item and reviewed the order of the agenda. Allen Barnard reviewed and explained the proposed motion for Council consideration and answered questions regarding the process. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, answered questions from the Council regarding the site. MOVED by Micks, seconded by Johnson and motion carried to amend the action previously taken on June 2, 1997 regarding the preliminary design plan for PUD #74, Hidden Lakes Development, by hereby approving the preliminary design plan for PUD #74, subject to the following conditions and considerations: . 1. The Council supports the Hidden Lakes Development in general in that it appears to meet the requirements of the City's residential zoning district. 2. Affordable housing is not appropriate in this development. 3. The engineering considerations set out in the memo from Assistant City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated February 13, 1997 are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 4. The considerations raised in the memo from City Director of Inspections Mark Kuhnly, dated May 23,1997, are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 5. The considerations raised in the March 5, 1997 letter from Hennepin County Department of Public Works covering the access road are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 6. The Declarations, Covenants and related documents must be revised to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney as a condition of this approval. 7. Canoes are the only watercraft that will be permitted on Twin Lake. . . . . Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Page 2 Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary Desian Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development - Continued 8. The Council supports some sort of public access on any or all of the lakes adjacent to or incorporated in the PUD. 9. The developer has agreed to remove the peninsula portion of the Hidden Lakes project from the initial state of development. The peninsula area will be designated as a future phase of the PUD and in the interim be platted as a single residential lot related to the existing house. Final approval an construction of the peninsula phase will not be sought by the developer, as he has agreed, until the following have been completed: a. All environmental and other information related to development on the peninsula has been assembled and provided to the City. b. All due diligence and all care has been taken to address the issues regarding development on the peninsula including environmental issues. c. All major grading and infrastructure on Phase I has been successfully completed and the developer has successfully complied with all related conditions of approval and requirements of environmental sensitivity on Phase I. d. Home building has been successfully completed on at least five lakeshore lots on Phase I. For purposes of this subparagraph "home building" is defined as completion of all planned site improvements, building construction and issuance of a . Certificate of Occupancy for the structure. e. Ten of the town homes have been issued Certificates of Occupancy. Both the developer and the City acknowledge that great care needs to be taken determining the ultimate development pattern on the peninsula as it is an environmentally sensitive portion of the site and it must be protected during construction and in its ongoing maintenance and development. Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Page 3 ~ . Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary Desian Plan Approval - PUD #74 -. Hidden Lakes Development - Continued The developer shall provide additional information to the City to inform its decisions regarding the peninsula and to work with the City to satisfy any reasonable conditions of approval related to the peninsula. Ultimate development plans for the peninsula will be shaped by City decisions about park dedication, which may include a trail on a portion of the peninsula, as well as the relative weight that the City chooses to place on specific environmental features, characteristics, or objectives. For instance, if the City decides to protect the portion of the peninsula that is close to the elevation that would meet the definition of a bluff, as though it were c:l bluff, the developer agrees to cooperate. However, it is understood that in agreeing to provide additional information and honor requests for greater protection and sensitivity to chosen features, the developer has not relinquished any development rights to the land on the peninsula. When plans are submitted to gain approval of Phase II of the Hidden Lakes PUD (the peninsula) the developer agrees that the City may use the following criteria to determine the adequacy of those plans: . a. All the lots to be created shall exceed the minimum lot size and the average lot size shall be twice the minimum lot size established by the DNR in shoreland impact areas. b. The 50 foot setback requirement, per section 11.65 (Shoreland Management) of the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance, for the private roadway serving the future peninsula lots will be maintained except where it is acknowledged that it is impractical and unfeasible to do so at the bridge and the roadway immediately past the bridge that currently exists. c. Hidden Lakes shall retain the services of c:l qualified geohydrologist to verify the location and number of springs and seeps and all of these features shall be protected by inclusion within the designated "no impact zone". d. The City Engineer shall determine whether the lots to be created have adequate buildable area after all the necessary land has been provided to accommodate storm water improvements, environmental easements, restrictions on woodland clearing and all other performance standards contained in the Jeff Oliver memo dated February 13, 1997. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: . ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - NO MICKS - YES RUSSELL - YES . . Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary . t Special Meeting of the City Council June 19,1997 Page 4 Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary DesiQn Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development - Continued Allen Barnard reviewed the process for the next stage in the develpment process. Adjournment MOVED by Russell, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimoulsy to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: I......~ . ~.... :.& ... .(J f~'~ . 1i1J: AND PRIOR TAXES PAID TAXPAYER SERVICES TRANS:FER .ENT~REO FEB 13 - ~COUNTY MINN. , o~< D6PUTY DECLARATION OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS This Declaration of Easement (the "Declaration") is made this 1;J+h day of f"~~~ ' 1990. by Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Declarant"). . WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain real property located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and legally described as Outlot A, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74 (the "Burdened Property"); and WHEREAS, as a condition for approval of the plat of Hidden Lakes, the city of Golden Valley (the "City") has required that an easement be dedicated overand across a part of the Burdened Property for public access, subject to the conditions set forth herein. THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the covenants and agreements contained herein, and for other valuable consideration, Declarant, for itself, and its successors and assigns, hereby dedicates,' grants and conveys to the City, for the benefit of the public, a permanent, non-exclusive easement over and across that part of the Burdened Property described in Exhibit. A .attached hereto (the "Easement Area"), for access, subject to the conditions and restrictions' set forth herein. ' 1. The Easement Area shall be used exclusively for access. 'by pedestrians and vehicles between Golden Valley Road on the north, and the three properties bordering the Easement Area on the south, east and west, which properties are legally. described in Exhibit B attached hereto and are collectively referred to as the "Benefitted Properties." 2. Parking or the storage of any personal property on the Easement Area shall be prohibited. . 3. The Easement Area shall be maintained by the Hidden Lakes Community Association (the "Association"), the owners association governing the Burdened Property. The Association shall also be responsible for the erection and maintenance of signs located on the Easement Area governing the use thereof, in accordance with City regulations, and enforcing 26923_1 : DBE : SUEN JIt, ,t i all restrictions imposed by or pursuant to the Master Declaration of the Association, as recorded. . The City shall have no obligation to maintain the Easement Area, but may perform needed maintenance upon reasonable prior written notice to the Association if the Association fails to perform the maintenance. The City shall have a claim and right of action against the Association for the costs of such maintenance. 4. This Declaration shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. The easements and restrictions established herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the owners of the Burdened Property and the Benefitted Properties, and their successors and assigns, the City and the public. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the date set forth above. HIDDEN LAKES DEVELOPMENT LIl\UTED P.t\RTIjEl\SHIP H,~~ ~.\4, Y~~lO &..hC. By: ,1 s. , General Partner By: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . ~~.instrument was acknowledged before.me this /{11- .. day of ..' . ~. 199~. '~kf1::y~~::,/I.Le- '. m: ~ l':.~..,.J:;!L ~the general partner of Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership, a Minnesota imited partnership, on behalf of said entity. DEBRA 001 NOTARY ~U81.1C."'If""OfA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Colllmitlion E.,.__.It,_ ~~~~ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: David B. Eide FROMMELT & EIDE, LTD. Attorneys at Law 580 International Centre 900 Second A venue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-2200 . 26923_1 : OBE: SUEN 2 t ~, . EXHIBIT A TO DECLARATION OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS pj{oroSEJ).~C~~G~:.~~ . .' .:. . . . An~~~~~d~S~~~~~.~'~a~~'tbat.. . . . .' "~'of.0i1t1<:>t:~.~~~~:~~'NQ~74:.~~.~, '.. . .' MiDneSota. J..nftr]'uOrtheif.ofthe.foU."' '. "'~ribed:1inc_'its . .. ~J'~. '. Y .', . ~ ..... .. . 'esterlyandeaSieii' ':~' '.. ",,: . .' .";' . 00. .....: .... . . ~ ..t. . :': :. y. '.' :'~'. . ..':, :._'.. . " . ~, . .~.at'th~-~~y;~:coxner.ofLoil..- ::." . .........::<. :,\:.';.:::. >:..: BioCk:4,-S3id;HIi>>>EN.tAKES:P.tID.NO.74?tfienee'South26' . dcigrees :l~~#66'~~ ~:,~~'~'~~1he. ~y.mre.~sQiQ~Ot.^,..a.~.#~':~~:~ ~~.'p,Oint '. of~g 9f~:linC(tob.c:~n'be4i~.Sa,uth ~9'~. '.' . 3~ ..' ..-;' Q9:'::_:':_;.a;OF.ast' ~:....:.._t..;, . ~';L. 96 ~...: ~...t._'. . , mmu~. ~J!.IiS .a.UQ.\AU.l\NO~~. ,~\NI. "o..loUV ~lytineOf.~~.~~.f!.'~d.~:~~i~~. . .. " . ", . " \ . . .... .. . : . . . . .',' . . , . . -: . . . . "" . . .. .t .. CONSENT AND JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE . Transitional Hospitals Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Mortgagee"), is a mortgagee of all or a portion of the Burdened Property (as defined in the attached Declaration of Easement for Public Access ("Declaration")) by a Mortgage recorded in the office of the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 2682195 (the "Mortgage"). Mortgagee hereby consents to and joins in the Declaration; provided, that the Mortgage shall be and remain a lien on the Burdened Property until released or satisfied. IN WITNESS ~o~ortgagee has caused this Consent and Joinder to be executed on the/tiff day of _:L u......, 1992-. TRANSmONAL HOSPITALS CORPORATION By: I~: ?L7 STATEOF~~ COUNTY OF ~ ) o~l~g~ :OrF~~$;:j::)A/199,1u.; and ~pectivelY, of Transitional Hospitals orporation, a Delaware C!)rporation, on beblll~~=O~[w~ Notary blic Notary Public, State at large, KY My commission expires Apr. 18, 2001 Its: ~~ . ~uJ~~ . By: ) ) ss. This instrument was drafted by: David B. Eide, Esq. FROMMELT & EIDE, LTD. 580 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 332-2200 . 26923_1 : OBE : SUEN . .. '+' ~ '. 'I. ;_~ " ;f . Ji:J.!: AND PRIOR TAXES PAID TAXPAYER SERVICES TRANSFER ENTiHED FEB 13 1998 ffi~~~M~;UlY DRAINAGE EASEMENT This Instrument" is made this ~ day of~, 1991J, by Courage Center, a Minnesota non-profit corporation (the "Grantor"V ~ WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in the County of Hennepin, State" of Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 3, and Outlots Nand 0, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74 (the "Burdened Property"); and . WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of the plat of Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, the city of Golden Valley (the "City") has required that an easement be dedicated over and across a part of the Burdened Property for drainage purposes, for the benefit of the City and Outlot A, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, Hennepin County, Minnesota. THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the covenants and agreements contained herein, and for other valuable consideration, Grantor, for itself, and its successors and assigns, hereby dedicates, grants and conveys to the City a permanent, exclusive easement over, under and across that part of the Burdened Property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Easement Area"), for drainage purposes, subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth herein. 1. The easement is intended to provide drainage for storm water run-off from public streets and land located near the Easement Area, and from a certain public access easement area located on part of Outlot A, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74. 2. All drainage and storm sewer piping, equipment and related installations located in the Easement Area shall be initially installed and constructed by and at the expense of Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership, and shall be thereafter maintained in good and serviceable condition by and at the expense of the City. The surface of the Easement Area, including, without limitation, all landscaping, ponds and other surface improvements located thereon shall be maintained by Grantor; provided that the City shall restore and repair any areas . damaged or disturbed by its maintenance activities. 27239_1 : DBE : SUEN ~.- . . 3. This Instrument shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. The easements and restrictions established herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and the owners of the Burdened Property, and their successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and the City have caused this Instrument to be executed as of the date set forth above. COURAGE CENTER CITY OF GOLDEN V ALLEY By: --~I ~ -' r I By: r f:(l~ Its: _1(_:~::~$.\6~ ~~ Mary derson, Mayor / And STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SSe COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) behalf of said entity. ANN H. SEIFERT Not_ P\IUC-....... tEtKANCCUfIY -.............. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SSe COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) instrument was acknowledged if me ~ KJ day of , 199 r , by ~. , the Courage Center, a "Mmnesota non-pro It corporation, on / . Notary Pn~ fd ~ was ac)qJowledged before me this zJif..- day of , , 199)f , by Mary Anderson and Shirley J. Nelson, res~rctively tb Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal go~rnment, on behalf of the City. 'M-a. . 27239_1 : DBE : SUEN 2 , . J . . .' '# .. This instrument was drafted by: David B. Eide FROMMELT & EIDE, LTD. Attorneys at Law 580 International Centre 900' Second A venue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-2200 27239_1 :DBE:SUEN 3 ,. .."" . , <I \' 'i EXHIBIT A . TO DRAINAGE EASEMENT An ~ement for drainage and udl.ity purpos~ Qver.under,and across ~at'part otLot I. Bloc~ 3, O~tJot N and Outlot O. HIDDEN LAKES -PUO NO. 74' ac~o.rding ~o the iec:br~ed' plat thereof. .H.enhepm' County, MinneSota, described as. folloW6: Lying w~terl)' of the following'descr.ibed tine: ~mmenclA",~t t!1e most southcr:ly ~(ner,~~OUTLOTN..sai~ ~D~ ~~S PUD-N,a. 74. ~e,liee North ~9 de&re~4~ minuteS 1'1 s~cPn$ East, asSumed bearing~ along'tbe sbutb line of .said OUTLOTN. a distance of 35',59' feet; thence North 08 aegrees:ft ,minutes 34 seconds West a dlst<inee of 76,98 'feet to th~ ~~,I)'''l~~ 'oioutlot l'.J '~'nd the point o(beginQirtg ofihe lint,to' be described; thence ,South ,OS depes,II,minutes34,seConds,East.along the last d~n"ed line. a distauce of: 12S.a.O ,feet; thel)Ce SOul~ (ll',degi.ees'24 minuteS 03. seconds 'West a disum~ 0(63:66 fe~t; tbonec Sauth,03'degrees'40 minutes 09 'seCOnds West a diStanc~ of l.i9.78'feetiothe westerly line of.said OUTLOT p; said. line there ,terminating. AND Thc.ce.nterline of a 20,QO.foo[:drain~e'and .utiU~ ease'me~lis deser~be(hs fOnO~6: ,Commencing at said most southerly ~mer,ofOtJ1l..0:rN; thC1\cc ~Qut1i 02 de~e$. 2'1 minutes. 48 Si:eonds~E.ast assuin~ b~ng a:1~n~:s~id,vi~~rlY line 'OfaUTLO'f~. ~ disum~ of29:39 feet t9 \he point of'b~glnQjn.g ~f,tbe ceqterJme to be 'd~$C1'i1:)e~' thenee ~outh 89 degrees 0) ~inJtes 56 seConds, East a distauee' ot-175.00 feet: said' ~nJeriine 1here terminatll,lg. . AN!> The centerline of a 20.00 foot 4.rainage and utility easemenE ~s, d~scrlbed as f.()lIows: l:Ommenclng at T,tle northeast eo~<?f ~f ~d Lot,l; thence South,OO degrees 20 minl1t~s,9~ Seconds 'West assWriecU;eaiing. along thC'~&si:liJ)e :01 sajd Lot 1; a ,distanCe of 87.68: 'f.eet to the p~int of begln,ni~g'oftbe cr:n~crlln~ ,to.:~~ :descri.~d; .~~~ South ~8 degrees. 39. minutes 45 seconds West a distiuice of 55'.00' feei: s:a.rd.cen~r fine, tb.erc- tenniJiating,: AND An:~ew~t f~r drainage. uiility arid ponding purpoSe$, ov~r. '\I~?er. ~!i C!;ero~s tha~ part ofLOtr I, .~Iock 3, RII?D~ ,t.~KES 'p:uo NO)74 a~rding'~ ~e 'r~,?~d, plat 1lie~eof, H~nepiri CountY. ~~S()ta, , described as follows: ...) .. " . ' '.. Commencing a[ ~1d-moSt southerly c9~et of.PUTLOT N;',thenpe S,outh 02 degrees 21. minutes 48 ~onds ~t asSumed 1;~ing alqDg.s!id'w~st.ejiy,jin~ efp~TLqT.O) a distanCe of2~.3~ffeet; thence, South-8'9 ~egrees 0 I minutes S65Cconds East.. disilm~':of 128.48 feet to tbe'pob\t of ~ginning. of die 'easem~nt.'t~ b~"dC3cribC'~; 'thence' ~outh',~8, degiee~ 43 ini~~tes i 4' seconds ,.East a di$tan~c of 14~.07 feet; thenCe N~i:ih i!J. d~'es O~p1i~ut~$. S3 .s'econdS. Eas~ ~ 'd.istan~ of 28. 1-.7 'feet; . th~cc'N.ortb 16 de~es; I~ minutes,55 Sec;onds'East:~ distailco'Of63:00 feet; then~e Nortb..3-S degrees. 00 m1nuteS. 00 seconds ~t'8. distariee.of.145.00 feet; thenc~, South '70 degr~es -6G ininuteS OO,seconds W~st a'dist,ancc ot:43.00 fe~i;'theriee Souib 13 degr~s,Q1 minutes SS secondS'E8.st a distan~ ofSl'.~7 feet to th~ point ofbeg~ni~g" ,.. . . . ~ .-: ". C; (\ ~ tL i; :l7 ~ m en iTt .:0 ~J ~ a ~ ~ ([ Q'l r- "'J f~~ I~ AND PRIOR TAXES PA'D TAXPAYER SERVICES TRANSFER ENTERED ~ ;o~ ,."t ~~ 551'''' o 0'" "":;1 > ~;:1 ~ ~rn ::!: m ("')2: 0 fTl2: ..., :::0 rs ~ ...." :::!2 rsf IT1 ""('")00 CD iTio.,,'" I~A 0 ~.::! ~ -n-i;j"" ''..:> - :< ,." ::0 f;is:U>8 .~ g~ ~ z~ )> o ::0 ~ FFB 13 911 t2.~~COUNTY MINN. " 0.1 L-- DSPUTY DECLARATION OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC LAKE ACCESS This Declaration of Easement (the "Declaration") is made this JJ. ~ day of t ~1.~ ' 1991, by Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnershi (the "Declarant"). WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain real property located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and legally described as follows (the "Burdened Property"): Outlot K, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74 WHEREAS, as a condition for approval of the plat of Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, the city of Golden Valley (the "City") has required that an easement be dedicated over and across the Burdened Property, for public access to Sweeney Lake and for certain related recreational purposes, subject to the conditions set forth herein. THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the covenants and agreements contained herein, and for other valuable consideration, Declarant, for itself, and its successors and assigns, hereby dedicates, grants and conveys to the City, for the benefit of the public, a permanent, l1on-exciusive easement over and across the Burdened Property for access [0 Sweeney Lake, and for certain recreational use, and an easement to the City for the maintenance of the Burdened Property, subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth herein. 1. The Burdened Property shall be used exclusively for (i) the launch and recovery of canoes, kayaks, and similar small oar or paddle-powered watercraft, and sailboards and sailboats not over 18 feet in length, and for temporary parking of vehicles (not trailers) during such use, and (ii) the placement by the Declarant, and use by the public, of a reasonable number of picnic tables, benches and related passive recreational facilities. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, the Owners of lots in the Hidden Lakes project which abut the shore of Sweeney Lake shall have the exclusive, additional right to launch and recover their personal motorized watercraft on the Burdened Property. 26839_3 : OBE : SUEN , 2. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, the City shall have the right to remove the foregoing restrictions and to open the Burdened Property to the public for the launch and . recovery of motorized boats, subject to any governmental restrictions relating to the use of Sweeney Lake. Said right shall be exercised by passing a City council resolution authorizing the expanded use of the Burdened Property, which resolution shall be effective upon its recording in the office of the appropriate county recording officer. 3. Except as authorized by this Declaration, powered watercraft of any type, including without limitation, "jetskis," snowmobiles, "all-terrain vehicles" or other motorized vehicles or watercraft are prohibited from gaining access to Sweeney Lake or Twin Lake over and across the Burdened Property, or over and across Outlot A, Hidden Lakes. 4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City reserves the right to adopt resolutions or ordinances. permitting, prohibiting, or regulating different types of watercraft and uses of the Burdened Property, and to enforce any of the restrictions set forth in this Declaration. 5. The Burdened Property, together with accessory structures and facilities,.shall be maintained by the Hidden Lakes Community Association (the "Association"), the owners association governing the Burdened Property. The Association shall also be responsible for the erection and maintenance of signs located on the Burdened. Property governing the use thereof, in accordance with City regulations, and enforcing all restrictions imposed by or pursuant to the Master Declaration of the Association, as recorded. The City shall have no obligation to maintain the Burdened Property, but may perform needed maintenance upon reasonable prior . written notice to the Association if the Association fails to perform the maintenance. The City shall have a claim and right of action against the Association for the costs of such maintenance. 6. This Declaration shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. The easements and restrictions established herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Declarant, and its successors and assigns, the City and the public. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the date set forth above. '.HIDDEN LAKES DEVELOPMENT LIM~r~p P~T$RSJlIP "'hdJ...,. l.~ y~ ~~'" By: l,h , General Partner By: . 26839_3 : DBE: SUEN 2 , ".: '.~ . . . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 55. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ~ O..l'Lov",Jt.t.A_J , 199..2-, by , the ~-fY1 of .~' L ,a . . ~~ ,the general partner of Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership, a Minnes ta limited partnership, on behalf of said entity. I- DEBRA 001 ,- ....OTARY PUILIC.MIfl..UOTA . HENNEPIN OOUNTY ;;' .' . ,., eo...... E.-. JIll. St. 2100 . ~~~~ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: David B. Eide FROMMELT & BIDE, LTD. Attorneys at Law 580 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-2200 26839_3 : OBE : SUEN 3 , . . . . ~ Forest Management Plan for Hidden Lakes Development Golden Valley, Minnesota Prepared by: Kunde Co., Inc. 2311 Woodbridge St. # 170 Roseville, MN 55113 Kunde Co.. Inc. - Consulting F~ Attachment 6 Forest Management Plan ~~, . ,/~ / tJr;r- 6i/-PI&,~:J (l'/JeufJ Ctj 7-& t/ "': Contents Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . General. Site Description Forest Cover Type Description . . . . . . . . Landscaped Areas. . . . . Natural Areas Lowlands. Uplands. Tree Protection: Specifications and Techniques Specifications and Recommendations General. . . . . . . Disease Protection . Tree Removal Tree Trimming. . . . . . . Diseased Trees . . Laws and Regulations Special Precautions . . . . r echniques. . . . . . . . . . Tree Disease Program. . . . . . . . . . . Pre-construction Disease Control Post-construction Disease Control Site and Lot Forest Management. . . . . Reforestation. Procedure. . . . . . . . . . Plant Materials for Reforestation . . Post-Construction Covenants. . . . . . " .~ . 3 3 ............. 5 7 7 ....7 8 ........9 . . . .10 . . .10 .10 . . . . .11 . .ll . . . . . . . . .11 . .11 . .11 . .12 . . . .13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 . . . . . . .14 . . .15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 . .18 Requirements for Inspections, Identification and Compliance with Tree Preservation Specifications Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 . . . .20 . . . . . . . . . .21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 . . . . . .21 References. . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .22 Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . . . Figure 1. Location of Hidden Lakes Development . Table 1. Trees by Condition Class . . . . . . . . . . Table 2. Condition Class Count by Species. . Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresten . .23 . . . . . . . .24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 . . . . . . . .26 ...... . . . . 3 Introduction The Forest Management Plan for the Hidden Lakes Development is comprised of the following sections: 1) Forest cover type description, 2) Tree protection specifications and techniques, 3) Tree disease program, 4) Site and Lot Forest Management; for site and individual lot forest management and reforestation for the purpose of aesthetic, wildlife, water and forest quality preservation, 5) requirements for the inspection, identification and compliance with Tree Preservation Specifications for individual lot development. The need for a Forest Management Plan was discussed and agreed upon as a result of a meeting on 4/3/96 with AI Lundstrom city forester for Golden Valley, William Huser, and representatives ofKunde"Co., Inc. This Plan reflects the desire oflocal and state agencies to preserve the valuable natural resources in and around Twin and Sweeney Lakes, and the desire of the Hidden Lakes Development to provide a high quality living experience on home sites unique to the Twin Cities' inner ring suburbs. Note: In this Plan, trees will be referred to by either their common name (eg. Boxelder) or italicized, scientific name (Acer negundo) or, in some cases, both. Use of scientific names may prove laborious for some readers, however, common names, while descriptive and easily recognized, can be confusing. One common name may be used to describe a number of botanically different trees. The scientific name is limited to only one unique tree species. General Site Description. The Hidden Lakes Development site is located in Golden Valley, Minnesota. It is found just south of Golden Valley Road (highway 66) and is bordered on the east and south by Theodore Wirth Golf Course and on the west by Sweeney Lake (see Appendix, Figure 1). The site lies within a region described by researchers as the Eastern Oak Area of Minnesota. This area lies east of an area known as the Big Woods, between Lake Minnetonka and Saint Anthony Falls on the Mississippi River. In pre-settlement times, the Eastern Oak Area was dominated by Bur Oaks (50%), Red Oaks (22%) and White Oaks (9%). This differed significantly from the Big Woods area which was dominated by elms, maple and basswood with a much smaller oak component (Grimm, E. C. 1984). Most of the vegetative differences between the Big Woods and the Eastern Oak Area is due to the ability of lakes, streams and other natural features to limit the extent offire in the Big Woods. One might infer that control of fire in the Eastern Oak Area might, over time, produce a mix of vegetation similar to that of the Big Woods. For all practical purposes, the Eastern Oak Area can no longer be describe as such. Control of fire and increased human activity have changed the makeup of this urban forest. Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters Topography ofthe site varies significantly, ranging from a low at the lake shorelines of approximately 827 feet above sea level to over 928. feet. Soil samples taken from the site and analyzed by the University of Minnesota Soil Testing Laboratory represent soils with medium to coarse textures, low to high organic matter content and above normal pH. Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters : 4 . . . 5 . . 1) Forest Cover Type Description . Kunde Co., Inc. - Coasulting Foresters 6 The Hidden Lakes Development site contains a wide variety of tree species. No fewer than 36 . different species are represented. This is due, in part, to two factors. First is the difference in soils relating to the varying terrain: low-lying moist soils at or near Twin and Sweeney lakes and the dryer, well-drained upland area (approximately 100' above the lakes) in the eastern part of the site. Soils with significantly different moisture regimes typically support different forest cover types. Second, and equally important is the influence of man-made disturbances in determining the number and distribution of species found on the site. Many tre~ species found on the site are not native to this part of Minnesota and have obviously been planted as part of the landscaping of the now vacated hospital grounds. This is evidenced by the presence of Douglas-fir and Ginkgo trees. Conversely, man-made structures such as parking lots and grass mowing prevent growth of trees in areas where they would otherwise thrive. Thirty six different tree species are represented by 2,146 individuals, all with diameters> 6.0 ". A complete list of these, in numeric tag sequence, can be found in Table 2 (see Appendix). Eleven of the 36 species are not native to Minnesota. In order of frequency found, these non-native species are: 1. Norway spruce 2. Siberian Elm 3. Blue spruce 4. Scotch pine 5. Russian olive 6. Norway maple 7. Ornamental cherry 8. Crabapple 9. Douglas-fir 10. Linden 11. Ginkgo . .. Twenty five native species are represented, indicating considerable diversity for a site this size. However, like the non-native species, many native trees have been planted as elements of landscaping. This includes several green ash, red oak and white spruce. Cottonwoods are the most frequently found trees on the site.comprising 25% of all trees. Boxelders follow closely and together these two species account for nearly half of all trees. This predominance is not entirely unexpected due to the large area of wet and mesic soils associated with the lake shorelines. These trees are commonly found on such sites. For the purpose of this Plan, the Forest Cover Type Description will correspond to the presence or lack of man-made disturbance: 1) landscaped areas corresponding to buildings, roads and parking lots, and 2) natural or near-natural areas such as those adjacent to the lakes or the upland area on the site's east side. . Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters 7 . A) Landscaped Areas. These areas are associated with manrnade structures found on the Hidden Lakes Development site. This site contains dozens of trees and shrubs belonging to a variety of genera, apparently installed as part of the landscaping by former property occupants/owners. Most are in close proximity to buildings, roads and parking lots with the exception of plantings on the north-facing slope of the hill along the east border shared with Theodore Wirth golf course. These plantings are part of landscaping which includes a retaining wall and steps leading to an exercise path at the top of the hill. All eight Norway maples (Acer platenoides), can be found in this general vicinity. Though representatives from the list of eleven non-native species (above) are most common in the landscaped areas, one can also find native trees such as white spruce near the vacant hospital and white oaks near the house just to the east. The oaks were, most likely, growing before any site structures were built while the spruces were planted as part of the landscaping. Several trees and shrubs on the site are of a size easy to transplant. Kunde Co. personnel determined which of these are of sufficient quality for re-use and marked them with blue ribbons for identification. From a distance many of the smaller trees and shrubs appear to be quite attractive. On closer examination, many spruces of transplantable size show significant insect damage, probably due to spruce sawfly larvae. Many of the shrubs have too much deadwood or show too poor a form to re-use. However, several lilacs bushes near the road to the peninsula can be re-used along with several small ash trees and some of the spruces. . B) Natural Areas. 1. Lowlands. An isthmus (commonly referred to as "the peninsula") extends between Twin and Sweeney Lakes and contains at least 8 tree species. This is more diverse than other low-lying areas at the site. Much of this can be attributed to rapid elevational changes ( more than 20' rise in l~ss than 100') and several slope aspects which provide a variety of growing conditions in a small area. Soils here are coarse in texture with a pH of 7.1 and a medium organic matter content. Phosphorus and potassium content is low to medium. The low-lying areas adjacent to Twin Lake are predominately cottonwood and boxelder with some willow and green ash. Evidence of beaver activity was found on several cottonwoods along the shore. No soil test was done here because it was felt the one done in the similar lowland area along Sweeney Lake was representative of both. . The lowland area north of the road to the isthmus and along Sweeney Lake is the largest lowland forest area on the site. It is broadest near the road and most narrow at the northern end of the property. Again, boxelders and cottonwoods dominate with boxelders commonly found closer to the lake while cottonwoods abound along the rise to the grassy, open area east of Sweeney Lake. Many of these boxelders are of poorer quality than other tree species at Hidden Lakes and poorer than other trees within this lowland area. A few green ash can also be found here. A portion of this area was apparently filled with. soil, as evidenced by steel rings acting as soil exclusion devices around the trunks of three bur oaks (tag numbers 805 and 810). The third tree is dead and was not tagged. A fourth Kunde Co.. Inc. - cODSUlting Foresters 8 ring surrounds a fire-scarred stump. The extent of this fill is unknown. Top soils here are . medium in texture, high in organic matter content and pH is quite high (8.2). Phosphorus levels are high while potassium levels are just below medium. 2. Uplands. Two upland areas exist at Hidden Lakes. The first is located at the northeast end of Twin Lake, beginning approximately at the path near the lake shore and rising thirty or forty feet to the tennis courts and adjacent vacant building. Here can be found a variety of trees: green ash, black cherry, basswood, elm, oak and ironwood among others. Slope inclination ranges from moderate at the north end near the isthmus road to steep along the south property boundary. The slope continues along the lake.shore into the neighboring property and with the forest cover. Tree species along the neighboring property shoreline and hillside are similar to that found at the development site. The second natural upland forest cover type is found at the highest elevations. Beginning at the open field and adjacent parking lot, this woodland rises to the east and runs generally north-south along the property border with Theodore Wirth Golf Course. Forest cover type is typical of an undisturbed, well-drained upland site, despite the addition of an exercise track at" the top of the hill. Oaks dominate here, particularly white oaks. Many of the oaks are in average or better condition. Slope aspect affects the distribution of tree species in this area. White oaks are common on the drier, south-facing slope as are ironwood on the dry, west - facing slope. Several small red oaks and green ash at the top of the hill would be good specimens for transplanting. A potential cause for concern is the presence of a dead, oak wilt-infected tree on the slope just below the top of the east side of the hill. A field inspection of this area in late August, 1996 showed no newly infected trees, however, we recommend monitoring this site and the implementation of control if disease spread through underground root grafts occur. Soils are medium in texture, low in organic matter content and have a pH of 7.1. . . Kunde Co., lne. - Consulting Foresters 9 . . 2) Tree Protection: Specifications and Techniques . KuIIde Co.. Inc. - Consulting Foreslers 10 Trees are important to us all. In general, they add to a property's value. More specifically they provide shade and protection from the elements, cleaner air and aesthetic beauty. Unfortunately, many trees die due to construction damage that would otherwise live. Although some trees can be saved after damage occurs, it is far more effective, easier and economical to prevent any damage from occurring. . There is no substitute for good protection. Time can be saved and mistakes avoided by following closely these specifications and recommendations. Forest protection will begin before the first tree is cut, and before the property is developed. This is essential to the success of future protection measures. Protection during all construction phases includes an inventory of trees on the site (already performed). It is important to identify the various species components, forest cover types, general forest co.ndition and individual tree health to develop a comprehensive plan for tree protection. A knowledge of proposed construction plans (ie. roads, drainage changes, etc.), impact of site feature placement on exinsting trees, and the implementation of techniques to minimize the impact of these improvements is also required. Our initial inspection details the forest cover type, species present, high value areas, forest condition, and possible problems. See Appendix for tree list, breakdown by species and condition, and other pertinent information. This information will be used to determine specific recommendations for tree protection during the initial stages of development. These . recommendations will include assisting in road placement to limit its impact to existing trees, marking tree protection areas, recommendations to time tree removals and road clearing to reduce the amount of damage to remaining trees (especially oak trees to prevent oak wilt infections), the possibility of timber harvesting, and utilization of slash (wood waste) materials. This may include the use of slash as a mulch for exposed, temperature sensitive areas, or to reduce soil compaction. This will be performed in co-operation with city officials and in compliance with existing ordinances to provide a feasible plan that can be correctly implemented on the site. 1) SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. 0 I General The work covered by these plans and specifications shall be performed at the Hidden Lakes Development site, located in Golden Valley, Minnesota, Hennepin County. 1. 02 Disease Protection All trimming and removal of oak trees is to be accomplished before April 15th or after July 1st, preferably after October I st, to reduce the possibility of infecting oak trees with oak wilt (Ceratocystisfagacearum). All trimming or construction wounds to oaks occurring between April 15th and July 1 st shall be immediately sprayed with a commercial tree wound dressing to . cover the entire wound and one to two inches of surrounding bark. Stumps of oaks cut between April 15th and July 1st shall also be sprayed to cover the entire cut surface. All pieces of machinery working with or near oaks on the job site must carry a can of tree wound paint. Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters . . . 11 No climbing spikes are to be used when trimming or climbing protected trees. 1.03 Tree Removal Trees removed in the construction area shall be felled away from areas of protected trees, into the right of way. This will avoid disturbance or damage to protected trees from falling trees. All brush not removed to an approved site must be burned or chipped on location. Stumps adjacent to protected trees may require grinding to reduce soil disruption, and will be marked. These stumps must be ground to a depth of 6 inches below the ground level. Proper equipment and qualified personnel using proper tree removal/stump grinding techniques are required. 1.04 Tree Trimming When trimming is required, climbing spikes are not to be used. Proper equipment and qualified personnel using proper and current trimming techniques are required. It is recommended that trimming be performed by arborists certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Trimming will be supervised by the Development's Forester. 1.05 Diseased Trees All diseased wood cut from the site shall be disposed and rendered harmless by using procedures determined by the Development's Forester. 1.06 Laws and Regulations Re: oak and elm wood movement and quarantine. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Plant Quarantine no. 78-1 elm wood Amended August 15, 1978. Regulations covered by this amendment restrict the movement of elm or oak wood into or through areas protected by shade tree disease programs. 1.07 Special Precautions a. Upon review of cleared ROW by the Development's Forester, a physical barrier of steel posts and snow fence will be located by the Development's Forester based on meeting with construction contractors, excavators, engineers, etc. These barriers will be placed by the Developer as offlimits areas for workers, visitors, operating equipment, parked equipment, parked vehicles, stored material, and pedestrian traffic. This area shall be known as the Protected Area in relationship to these specifications. b. Storage of fuels, chemicals, solutions, washing equipment shall be no closer than 10 feet from the Protected Area, or placed in areas approved by the Development's Forester. c. Runoff from construction sites must be diverted so as not to allow entrance into or puddling in the Protected Area. Use of silt fencing may be required. d. Where fill must be placed around Protected Trees due to extenuating circumstances (those trees within the Protected Area as well as other individual trees marked) a section of snowfence shall be wired around the trunk of the tree, to include any root flares. When Kunde Co..lnc. - Consulting Foresters removing fill from around trees, heavy equipment shall not be used to remove fill closer than two feet from the tree. This removal shall be accomplished by a person with hand tools, thus reducing the possibility of trunk injury. e. Special conditions exist ifwounding to trees occurs between April 15th and July 1st of any year that construction takes place in. See spec. 1.02. 2) Techniques 1. Stake construction limits to include mass graded areas after final road placement has been determined. 4. When the clearing process nears completion, the road area will be reviewed for additional removal needs or trees requiring pruning. 5. The appropriate fencing and signage will be installed at this time. 6. Road excavation work may proceed after fence placement. 7. Oak wilt infection centers will be controlled during the removal or grubbing stages (after July 1 and before April 1). . 8. Apply mulch to trees located in areas with extended exposure or rapidly drying. soils (ie. slopes with south through west aspects. 9. Periodic inspection will take place during the development phase by the Development's Forester and during normal inspections by the Development Site Manager. Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters 12 . . A. Pre-construction Disease Control 1. Review applicable municipal, county and state ordinances regarding disease control. 2. Aerial photography to identify forest health problems, including oak wilt, will be taken during the growing season. 3. Ground checking of possible disease centers identified by the aerial photography. 4. Laboratory diagnosis will be used as needed. 5. Prescribe disease control procedures necessary for the individual infection centers. 6. Control procedures implemented in accordance with existing state and local ordinances. 7. Complete all mapping and marking of control. areas. 14 . 8. Identify all disease hazard trees for proper removal and disposal. A disease hazard tree is a tree that can harbor a disease vector (insect, spores, etc.) thus facilitating disease . spread to other healthy trees. Hazard trees must be removed and disposed of in accordance with state and local regulations. B. Post-constructio Disease Control 1. Provide information to homeowners association regarding existing disease and insect problems through brochures and attending meetings. See following section 4 regarding distribution of forestry related materials. 2. The City of Golden Valley has a tree inspection program consisting of a city-wide canvas of its tree population for the identification of diseased trees. This applies to all developed and undeveloped areas within the city and has and will continue to include the Hidden Lakes Development. Land owners are notified of the existence of diseased trees on their property, their obligations under city ordinance and options relating to disease control work. Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting FQI'\lSIerS . . . . 15 .. 4. Site and Lot Forest Management KuIIde Co., Inc. - Cousulting Foreaers 16 This section addresses the need for whole-site and individual lot management to preserve the aesthetic, wildlife, water and forest quality of the Hidden Lakes Development site. It includes guidelines for maintaining the existing urban forest and reforestation. . A. Reforestation. Our research into pre-settlement forest conditions indicates the area in which the Hidden Lakes Development site is located once supported trees considered to be high in value, and can do so once again with proper planning, planting, tree selection and management. The reforestation plan will consist of re-establishing a native forest cover type in the affected area. This will include overstory tree species, understory species and shrub layer. The predominant concern is the fill areas adjacent to Sweeney and Twin Lakes. Many trees just below this fill will be removed for construction of a NURP pond. This area of the Development has experienced previous fill and excavation during earlier land development phases. Such past activity is manifest in the existence of tree rings or culvert-type soil retention areas placed around two bur oaks growing on the existing hillside. Two other such rings are found nearby; one around the dead stem of a bur oak and another around the burned stump of a tree. Past construction activity has, to a large extent, determined the present forest cover type. A,s, the site was developed, bare soil was exposed providing an essential element for the establishment of the cottonwood-boxelder-elm forest cover type which dominates this area today. . It is our opinion that the process of natural succession would change the makeup of the forested lowland areas over time. The percentage of cottonwoods and boxelders would decrease as they are replaced with more competition-tolerant species. The result would bea Lowland Hardwood forest comprised most likely of American elm, basswood, bur oak, hackberry, green ash and aspen, as the percentage of existing cottonwoods and boxelders decreased (Aaseng, et al. 1993). We feel this natural replacement will occur in the 50' buffer zone along the shoreline. However, it is our intention to encourage the planting of these species in lowland areas where trees must be removed to simulate natural succession. Due to the close proximity of the NURP ponds to Sweeney Lake and the over-riding concern to maintain water quality, we recommend taking advantage of the ability of certain tree species to sequester high levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in leaves and woody material relative to other tree species. For example, deciduous trees are generally more effective nutrient filters than conifers. For this purpose, we recommend planting of basswood and dogwood. Less effective, but still acceptable are red maple and red oak (Sykes et al. 1994). PROCEDURE. 1. Remove existing trees on site within construction footprint. 2. Remove existing topsoil and stockpile. . 3. Place required fill. Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters ~ . 4. Replace topsoil to a depth of 8" within the reforestation area. 5. Planting of site. a. Planting to take place during spring or fall. b. Trees and shrubs mulched immediately after planting. c. Seed area with forest topsoil to introduce indigenous herbaceous layer. d. Light mulching of entire area to prevent topsoil erosion while plants become established. . . Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters 17 18 PLANT MATERIALS FOR REFORESTATION. . Plant materials used for reforestation will be limited to the following: Overstory Understory Shrub Layer White Oak, Quercus alba Red Oak, Q. rubra Bur Oak, Q. macrocarpa Basswood, Tilio americana Green Ash (lower slope) Fraxinuspennsylvanica Cottonwood, Populus deltoides (lower slope, natural seeding) Hackberry, Celtis occidentalis Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) lowland areas only Red Maple, Acer rubrum Ironwood, Ostrya virginiana American Hornbeam, Carpinus carolinialla Ohio buckeye, Aesculus glabra Common Witchhazel, Hamamelis virgilliana Leatherwood,. Dirca palustris American Hazel, Corylus americalla American elder, Sambucus canadensis Redosier dogwood, Cornus sericea Gray dogwood, C. racemosa Pagoda dogwood, C. alternifolia . Plants in bold faced type are most suited to lowland areas. Additions or exceptions to this list are subject to the approval of the Development's Forester. B. Post-Construction Covenants. At the time of purchase of property within the Hidden Lakes Development the buyer(s) will be subject to certain covenants regarding vegetation preservation and management. All covenants outlined will conform to current and existing management practices recommended for the varying ecosystem types represented on the property by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, including Best Management Practices or BMP's. The State of Minnesota recently adopted voluntary Best Management Practices for Homeowner Lawn Care. We encourage the proposed Homeowners Association promote these BMP's through covenants and informational literature made available to homeowners. CopiesoftheDNR publications, Protecting Water Quality and Wetlands in Forest Management; Best Management Practices in Minnesota and A Shoreland Owner's Guide to Shoreland Alterations; ShorelandManagement Program should be made available to homeowners through a Homeowners Library. This library should also include information on tree pests (ie.diseases and related local ordinances), landscaping for wildlife and other literature that may aid residents in the proper management of natural resources within e. Hidden Lakes The importance of protecting and improving the existing forest types, especially those occupying Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters . . . 19 lowlands adjacent to the Development's lakes, requires long-term planning and protection. This can be accomplished, to a great extent, through the Homeowner Covenants. Guidelines for covenants: 1. The rate of change in the number of trees on an individual lot by removal for purposes other than disease control or hazardous conditions must be controlled to limit the rate of soil erosion and nutrient loading into lakes and waterways. We feel that, in most instances, trees may need to be removed over a time period greater than five years and ideally twenty years, to achieve improved views from individual homes. 2. The selection of individual trees to be removed for the purposes of view enhancement, lake access or stand improvement should be made by the Development's Forester. Clearing of trees and shrubs on waterfront properties must be limited to 10 - 20% (MN DNR, 1993). More extensive clearing may require a DNR permit and is not recommended. Additionally, removal should be performed at a time of year and in a manner specified by the Development's Forester. 3. Future tree and shrub plantings should be limited to those on an approved plant materials list, similar to the recommended reforestation species list. 4. Disease tree guidelines and requirements. 5. Proper management of understory species including the removal of undesirable species and planting of desirable species. 6. Management recommendations for wildlife to include identification of existing plants utilized by wildlife and recommend species for habitat and food. 7. Establishment of grass areas may be restricted so as not to dramatically change the forest cover type, significantly alter the ecosystem type and to protect existing sitelines. 8. Provide wise use of fertilizers and pesticides by promoting integrated pest management to increase their effectiveness and limit nutrient loading and chemical leeching. Low phosphorus fertilizers are available for use near bodies of water. 9. Establish a Homeowner's Library where materials will be available on various subjects relating to natural resources, tree diseases. and related ordinances, proper tree pruning and planting techniques. The Development's Forester will make available to the Homeowners Association and individual owners, plant materials lists, tree disease information and information relating to proper pruning, planting and removal procedures. Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters 5. Requirements for Inspection, Identification and Compliance with Tree Preservation Specifications Kw1de CQ.. Inc. '" Consulting Foresters 20 . . 21 . . The individual lot protection plans will be required in the covenants for wooded properties. The tree protection program has three sections: Section 1. Pre-construction meeting during the design phase with the builder and/or homeowner. Delineates house location on the lot, and the location of driveways and utility corridors. It also allows for individual trees to be marked for removal after house placement is finalized. Another facet of this section is the utilization of fencing to protect existing trees during the construction process. Fence placement is the responsibility of the builder. These fenced areas will be mapped and submitted to the.city. Section 2. On site inspections during construction. Deals with onsite inspections during construction. To ensure fencing remains in place and undisturbed for the duration of construction, at least one onsite inspection during the building process will be performed. Section 3. Includes a final inspection and sign-off for the city (if required.) A post-construction review with specific recommendations to the homeowner. The builder and the homeowner are integral parts of this entire phase. . Section 1. Pre-construction meeting with builder and/or homeowner. To be held prior to any physical construction or removal on the lot. a. Assist in determination of house placement if necessary. b. Determine utility corridors. c. Determine areas for fill storage, dumpster placement and storage of debris. d. Determine "Tree Protection Zone" (TPZ), and mark these areas on the lot when necessary . e. Require protective fencing with the appropriate signs on TPZ boundaries. f. Mark trees for removal g. Provide recommendations for removal procedures when necessary, and identify possible disease problems. h. Provide a map for the city, builder, and homeowner. This map will include, when necessary: (1) Location ofTPZs. (2) Approximate location of significant trees. (3) Temporary fill storage areas. (4) Trees to be removed. Section 2. During construction. . a. Require at least one inspection. during the construction phase. Section 3. Post-construction inspection and sign-off. Kunde Cc)., IDe. - ConsuItiDg Foresters 22 References Aaseng, Norman E., et al., 1993. Minnesota's native vegetation, a key to natural communities. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Biological Report #20. Version 1.5. Grimm, E. C. 1984. Fire and other factors controlling the Big Woods vegetation of Minnesota in the mid-nineteenth century. Ecological Monographs. 54(3). pp 291-311. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1993. A shoreland owner's guide to shoreland alterations: shoreland management program. State of Minnesota. 1996. Notice of adoption of voluntary best management practices for homeowner lawn care. The Minnesota State Register. Monday 21 October. p527-528. Sykes, K. 1., A. W. Perkey, and R. S. Palone. 1994. Crop tree management in riparian zones. USDA Forest Service. Kunde Co.. Inc. - Consulting Foresters . . Figure 1. Location of Hidden Lakes Development Kuude Co.. lnc. - CODSUlting Foresters 24 . . ...... ,.. . . . 1200 1000 25 Table 1. Trees by Condition Class CONDmON(%) COUNT 20 198 40 644 60 1019 80 285 800 ! Condition Class(%) 1EI.20 liilim . 600 I 40 . 60 . 80 400 200 o Number of Trees by Condition Class COUNT Kuodo Co., IIIc. - Coosulting Forestal 26 Table 2. Condition Class Count by Species SPECIES 20% 40% 60% 80% AVERAGE TOTAL %OF CONDITION COUNT TOTAL Cottonwood 29 161 283 72 54.6 545 25 Boxelder 60 255 140 2 43.7 457 21 Ash, Green 39 70 134 55 53.8 298 14 Oak, White 6 36 177 61 60.9 280 13 Elm, American 2 27 79 23 58.8 131 6 Oak, Bur 9 19 39 20 56.1 87 4 Oak, Red 5 13 27 12 56.0 57 3 Aspen, Quaking 2 7 26 8 58.6 43 2 Spruce, White 1 5 31 1 56.8 38 2 Willow 26 7 3 0 27.2 36 2 Spruce, Norway 0 1 16 13 79.3 30 1 . Elm, Siberian 1 9 8 2 51.0 20 <1 Ironwood 3 5 9 0 47.0 17 <1 Cherry, Black 3 4 6 2 49.3 15 <1 Spruce, Blue 0 1 8 5 65.7 14 <1 Pine, Scotch 0 1 7 2 68.9 10 <1 Basswood 1 2 5 1 48.0 9 <1 Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters . . . . . . . . ~ . , Olive, Russian 5 4 0 0 28.9 9 <1 Maple, Norway 3 1 3 1 45.0 8 <1 Redcedar, Eastern 0 5 2 0 45.7 7 <1 Honeylocust 0 1 5 1 60.0 7 <1 Cherry, Misc. 1 0 2 0 46.7 3 <1 Locust, Black 2 0 1 0 33.3 3 <1 Maple, Sugar 0 0 1 2 73.3 3 <1 Poplar, White 0 2 1 0 46.7 3 <1 Aspen, Bigtooth 0 1 1 0 50.0 2 <1 Mountainash 0 1 0 1 60.0 2 <1 Crabapple 0 1 1 0 50.0 2 <1 Whitecedar 0 1 1 0 50.0 2 <1 Birch, Paper 0 1 1 0 50.0 2 <1 Douglas-fir 0 0 1 0 60.0 1 <1 Maple, Silver 0 1 0 0 40.0 1 <1 Maple, Red 0 0 0 1 80.0 1 <1 Linden 0 1 0 0 40.0 1 <1 Ginkgo 0 1 0 0 40.0 1 <1 Elm, Red 0 0 1 0 60.0 1 <1 TOTAL 198 644 1019 285 53.0 2146 Kunde Co., Inc. - Consulting Foresters ~ . . . Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Golden Valley Road in said City on June 19, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Anderson, Johnson, LeSuer, Micks and Russell. Also present were: Jeanne Andre, Assistant to the City Manager; Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works; Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary. Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary DesiQn. Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development Mayor Anderson introduced the agenda item and reviewed the order of the agenda. Allen Barnard reviewed and explained the proposed motion for Council consideration and answered questions regarding the process. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, answered questions from the Council regarding the site. MOVED by Micks, seconded by Johnson and rnotion carried to amend the action previously taken on June 2, 1997 regarding the preliminary design plan for PUD #74, Hidden Lakes Development, by hereby approving the preliminary design plan for PUD #74, subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The Council supports the Hidden Lakes Development in general in that it appears to meet the requirements of the City's residential zoning district. 2. Affordable housing is not appropriate in this development. 3. The engineering considerations set out in the memo from Assistant City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated February 13, 1997 are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 4. The considerations raised in the memo from City Director of Inspections Mark Kuhnly, dated May 23,1997, are incorporated as conditions of this approval. , 5. The considerations raised in the March 5, 1997 letter from Hennepin County Department of Public Works covering the access road are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 6. The Declarations, Covenants and related documents must be revised to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney as a condition of this approval. 7. Canoes are the only watercraft that will be permitted on Twin Lake.. It. Special Meeting of the City Council June 19,1997 Page 2 . Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary DesiQn Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development - Continued 8. The Council supports some sort of public access on any or all of the lakes adjacent to or incorporated in the PUD. 9. The developer has agreed to remove the peninsula portion of the Hidden Lakes project from the initial state of development. The peninsula area wHl be designated as a future phase of the PUD and in the interim be platted as a .single residential lot . related to the existing house. Final approval an construction of the peninsula phase will not be sought by the developer, as he has agreed, until the following have been completed: a. All environmental and other information related to development on the peninsula has been assembled and provided to the City. b. All due diligence and all care has been taken to address the issues regarding development on the peninsula including environmental issues. c. All major grading and infrastructure on Phase I has been successfully completed and the developer has successfully complied with all related conditions of approval and requirements of environmental sensitivity on Phase I. . d. Home building has been successfully completed on at least five lakeshore lots on Phase I. For purposes of this subparagraph "home building" is defined as completion of all planned site improvements, building construction and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure. e. Ten of the town homes have been issued Certificates of Occupancy. Both the developer and the City acknowledge that great care needs to be taken determining the ultimate development pattern on the peninsula as it is an environmentally sensitive portion of the site and it must be protected during construction and in its ongoing maintenance and development. . II . . Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Page 3 Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary DesiQn Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development - Continued The developer shall provide additional information to the City to inform its decisions regarding the peninsula and to work with the City to satisfy any reasonable conditions of approval related to the peninsula. Ultimate development plans for the peninsula will be shaped by City decisions about park dedication, which may include a trail on a portion of the peninsula, as well as the relative weight that the City chooses to place on specific environmental features, characteristics, or objectives. For instance, if the City decides to protect the portion of the peninsula that is close to the elevation that would meet the definition of a bluff, as though it were a bluff, the developer agrees to cooperate. However, it is understood that in agreeing to provide additional information and honor requests for greater protection and sensitivity to chosen features, the developer has not relinquished any development rights to the land on the peninsula. . When plans are submitted to gain approval of Phase" of the Hidden Lakes PUD (the peninsula) the developer agrees that the City may use the following criteria to determine the adequacy of those plans: a. All the lots to be created shall exceed the minimum lot size and the average lot size shall be twice the minimum lot size established by the DNR in shoreland impact areas. b. The 50 foot setback requirement, per section 11.65 (Shoreland Management) of the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance, for the private roadway serving the future peninsula lots will be maintained except where it is acknowledged that it is impractical and unfeasible to do so at the bridge and the roadway immediately past the bridge that currently exists. c. Hidden Lakes shall retain the services of a qualified geohydrologist to verify the location and number of springs and seeps and all of these features shall be protected by inclusion within the designated l'no impact zone". d. The City Engineer shall determine whether the lots to be created have adequate buildable area after all the necessary land has been provided to accommodate storm water improvements, environmental easements, restrictions on woodland clearing and all other performance standards contained in the Jeff Oliver memo dated February 13, 1997. . Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - NO MICKS - YES RUSSELL - YES Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Page 4 Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary DesiQn Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development - Continued Allen Barnard reviewed the process for the next stage in the develpment process. Adjournment MOVED by Russell, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimoulsy to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary . .. , . . . . Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 Ms. Lisa Wittman, Planning Secratary City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 r~ I MAR 2 0 2001 BY: ::-----~ March 16, 2001 RE: Preliminary Plans, Hidden Lakes Peninsula development, City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Wittman: . I have looked over the materials that you sent for the above referenced project and have the following comments. The project appears to be consistent with the City's shoreland land use controls. Any work waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHW) of Sweeney (Twin) Lake may require a DNR permit. The inclusion of the rain gardens is welcome and should help reduce runoff from the site and promote infiltration of stormwater. I also think that they are an amenity that will be enjoyed by the residents and visitors. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651- 772-7910. Sincerely, sb Area Hydrologist . DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportpnity Employer Who Values Diversity ^ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a w4f' Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste ,. c; .-.'.. (:;<'A(V\~ . ,._~ -.,.-- -. .. t r'~ ~ ~ c...... . TRANSFER ENTERED tlEHNEPIN COUNTY TAX"^YI!\ SERVICES FER J 3 1998 tt* ~N1Y MINN. BY ~,~cPUTY CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS INSTRUMENT made this ci?J day of -QD.n.u.OJJ..J , 1992), by and between \ ~ HIDDEN LAKES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor") and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERA nON the Grantor, for itself, its successor and assigns, hereby arants to the City a permanent, non-exclusive conservation easement, as that term is defined in, and for the purposes established by, Minnesota Statutes Section 84C.Ol, over, under, and across the premises described in the attached Exhibit A ("Easement Area"), for the following purposes and rights: 1. Prohibited Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in perpetuity on the Easement Area, except as pennitted under Sections 2 or 3 below: a. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man) including but not limited to, buildings, structures, walkways, clothesline poles, and playground equipment; b. Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegetation, except for noxious weed control or safety reasons, by or as directed by a governmental agency; Excavation, filling, or other changes in natural grade; Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical; Application of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation; The deposit of waste, grass clippings, leaves, yard waste, or debris; M:'I9O\96OS0IINWG\Documcnll\Consc:rvaw.. Ea.scmcnLdoc I/l3m 1\:4\ AM ..,'..~;;;';,:;'3';.~\~~,>: g. ~::::.:<::).? ::.:':'::~~'~:/~~ir:';~:" :.~. ;.:~<:~ :':'~':~'.'''~.~'.:' ~:::'.SF-p ;:-~g>~;{:~~.>~:f . .. -,.. , The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides, except for noxious weed control, or control of mosquitoes or other insects for public health reasons, by or as directed by a governmental agency; l . h. Outside storage of ~y kind; and '.~:~}..:'~.~~~~'~ >/ ':."':~)' .:{}~ 1. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation and wildlife. 2. Restrictions on Certain Lakeside Lots. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1 above, as to Lots 1 to 5, Block 6, Golden Valley Health Center PUD No. 74 (which border Twin Lake), the following special restrictions shall apply: a. As to each such lot, no more thanJO% of the area extending inland 37.5 feet from the shoreline (calculated by multiplying the width of the lot at the shoreline by 37.5 feet) may be cleared of natural brush, shrubs and trees (referred to as the "Shoreland Portion"); b. An access corridor (referred to as the "Access Corridor") may be maintained on each such lot running roughly perpendicular to the shore from the Shoreland Portion to the dwelling constructed on such lot, such corridor not to exceed ten feet in width, and vegetation within such corridor may be thinned or cleared; and . c. Each of Lots 4 and 5, Block 6, Golden Valley Health Center PUD No. 74, shall have a stairway not to exceed four feet in width, with a landing not to exceed 32 square feet in area may be constructed and maintained on the Access Corridor anq · Shoreland Portion for physical access to the lake, and each of Lots 1 through3, said Block, may have such stairway and landing; 3. Rights of City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City, acting in its sole discretion for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this conservation easement, while still allowing for changes made desirable in the future for public health and safety, or by reason of unforeseen changes in circumstances, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to do the followi?g on the Easement Area: a. Preserve, improve, and enhance the slope, trees, vegetation, and natural habitat; b. Alter, clear, and remove dead or diseased trees, non-native plants and other vegetation; c. Change the contour of the land for drainage purposes; d. Plant trees or other vegetation; . e. Enter upon the subject property at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument; and M:\90\96050IWWG\DocumcnlS'.Consavation Eascmcnlcloc 111319111:41 AM -2- i~'i,~:~\';:~i:'~B~~i~,iii/ /,::;.))(;-;:~~? . f. Adopt ordinances updating the use of the Easement Area. :::;..:.. '..;:::..~~":: -'~:~:....~~" /:::}::-:::>:<:- This Conservation Easement may be. executed in counterpartS, each of which shall be deemed the :::./-_:<:;~;;iginally executed document. .:. .;"" ...... . '. ~ .~.. ........, .~ . . '. ... . .,~ .. ;-".' .'" ..:....- .~. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this iDstrument as of the day and year first above written. IDDDENLAKESDEVELOPMENT LIMlTED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota Limited partnership By: Hidden Lakes Partners, LoL.C. Its: General Partner By: . STATEOFMINNESOTA ) I 1. .. )ss. COUNTY OF I-UI~ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ q day of ~ 1'1 U (l ~ ' 1998, by Hidden Lakes Partners, L.L,e., a Minnesota limited liability company, the eneral P er of Hidden Lakes Development Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, by Barry 1. Blomquist, Jr., the Chief Manager of Hidden Lakes Partners, L.L.C., on behalf of Hidden Lakes Partners, L.L.C. . . le-.o'- PAMELA J. 8HZ I ~. NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA .,,, My Comm. Expires Jan. 31, 2000 . VVl'hY</'l.v....................................""'^.NV'. _P().JYujA ~ ~ Notary Public . -3- ". .". ~~iisi,;'i~1~~i;c~,i ' . 6.. .. .....;..: ~..':...: ~:.~;\.;:~'~~:~~~':6:.~.':~;.:' " <;,?~~~~F/ ", ...~" ..;.-; . : - . .~.." ':-. -. .j": e EXHIBIT A .. Easement Area '~ ...,:. . PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT Lots I through 5, Block 6, HIDDEN LAKES PUD NO. 74 A conservation easement over, under and across those parts of Lots I, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 6, HIDDEN LAKES PUD NO. 74, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Lot 5; thence North 73 degrees 46 minutes 17 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, Block 6, a distance of 166.87 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 01 degrees,22 minutes, 15 seconds West a distance of 402.19 feet; thence North 16 degrees 56 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 115.05 feet to the north line of said Lot I, Block 6; s~id line there terminating. PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT Lots 6 through 19, Block 10, HIDDEN LAKES PUD NO. 74 A conservation easement over, under anq across those parts of Lots 6,7,8,9,10, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 10, HIDDEN" LAKES PUD No. 74 lying westerly of the following described lined: . Comm~nc!ng 'It the no.rthwest COmer of said Lot 6, Block 10; thence South 89 degrees 46 m.inutes 15 seconds East, assumed bearing,alorig the north line of said Lot 6, Block ~O, a distance of24.45 feet to the"p,oi"nt of beginning of the line ~o be descri~d; thence South 00 " : degrees 10 mit:\utes 29.se~onds West a distance ofi87.50 feet; thence South 12 degrees 05 'minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 63.97 feet; thence South 17 degrees 55 minutes,50 s'econds East a distance of 65.78 feet; thence 'South 22 degre~s 17 minu~es :SO ~econds East adistance of 67.66 feet; thence South 15 degrees 18 minut~s 56 seconds East a distance of 129.75 fe~t; thence South 01 degrees 08 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 187.55 feet to the south line of said Lot 16, Blo~k 10; said line there terminating. ' AND A conservation ea'sement over, under and across; The South 17.00, feet of Lot 17, Block 10; The south 22.00 feet of Lot 18, Block 10; and The south 22.00 feet of Lot 19, Block 10 all in HIDDEN LAKES PUD NO. 74, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. . " AND A conservation easement over, under and across Outlot G, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. . A-I /r ./, ~. 'I . Special Meeting of the City Council June 2, 1997 The following me Also present were: I Allen Barnard, City Attorney, nt to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Cou ley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Gold 1997 at 6:30 p.m. The following letters on file: letter fro 21, 1997; Ie Mark W . . titions regarding the akes Development were placed ~ard Blais, dated May 16, 1997; m Bob Novak, dated May d petition from Glen Helgeson and Cori , dated May 27, 1997; ated May 15,1997; and letter from Faith Woodman, ated May 29,1997. Continued Discussion - Preliminary Desi<Jn Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development . Mayor Anderson introduced the agenda item. William Joynes, Allen Barnard along with other staff members Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and Rick Jacobson, Director of Park and Recreation; answered questions from the Council throughout the discussion of this item. In order to build a consensus on the main motion, the Council made the following subsidiary motions: 1. MOVED by Russell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously that the Council feels the Hidden Lakes Development does meet the requirements of Golden Valley's residential zoning district. 2. The Council discussed affordable housing and agreed affordable housing would not be appropriate in this proposal. MOVED by LeSuer, seconded by Russell and motion carried unanimously that the Council wants to incorporate the considerations raised in the memo from Jeff Oliver, dated February 13, 1997, support the concept of the street patterns interconnecting in a way tha~ is agreeable to staff, incorporate the considerations raised in the memo from Mark Kuhnly, dated May 23, 1997; and incorporate the Hennepin County letter about the access road dated March 5, 1997. . ,tV 8.t'1 .\ L ~ . 1 Special Meeting of the City Council June 2, 1997 Page 2 . Continued Discussion - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #7 4 ~ Hidd~11 Lakes Development 3. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Russell and motion carried unanimously to require that the . declarations and related documents need to be revised to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney before general plan approval. 4. MOVED by Russell, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to accept only the use of canoes on Twin Lake. 5. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Russell and motion carried unanimously to support some sort of public access on any or all lakes. MOVED by RussE;!lI, seconded by Johnson and motion denied to approve the preliminary design plan approval for PUD#74, Hidden Lakes Development subject to the following comments: a. Feels the Hidden Lakes Development does meet the requirements of . Golden Valley's residential zoning district. b. Affordable housing would not be appropriate in this proposal. c. Incorporate the considerations raised in the memo from Jeff Oliver, dated February 13, 1997, support the concept of the street patterns interconnecting in a way that is agreeable to staff, incorporate the considerations raised in the memo from Mark Kuhnly, dated May 23, 1997; and incorporate the Hennepin County letter about the access road dated March 5,1997. d Require that the declarations and related documents need to be revised to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney before general plan approval. e. Accept only the use of canoes on Twin Lake. f. Support some sort of public access on any or all lakes. g. Development to include the building of up to eight houses on the peninsula dependent on the engineering, setback a~d other restrictions on building location on the peninsula. . ,,...,... .'..........'. . . ~ : -. . V' .~ ; -#~ 1 , I" t . . . .. Special Meeting of the City Council June 2, 1997 Page 3 Continued Discussion - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development h. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: ANDERSON- YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - NO MICKS - NO RUSSELL - YES Mayor Anderson stated that this does constitute denial of the preliminary plan. The Council Members voting against the motion to approve indicated reasons/findings to support the Council's denial of the Preliminary Design Plan Application as set out in the following paragraphs. Council Member Micks expressed her reasons or findings as follows: 1. A portion of the peninsula may constitute a protected bluff; although the measurements relied on indicate that it is a few inches short of being a protected bluff, such measurements are suspect and should not be relied on. 2. The topography of the bluff requires that there be a lot of grading on it to build the road and home-building pads proposed by the developer. This grading will have a negative impact on the penin~ula, Sweeney Lake and Twin Lake. Accordingly, construction on the peninsula poses too great a hazard to the lakes, especially Twin Lake which is clean and pristine. 3. There are very few water resources left in Golden Valley or in the metro area itself which are in a pristine condition such as Twin Lake. The development may cause a significant hardship on the environment of the lakes by the substantial building immediately adjacent thereto and the necessary work on the bridge used to access the peninsula. Council Member LeSuer listed reasons/findings as follows: 1. The reconstruction of the bridge, including pilings, will have a substantial negative effect on Sweeney and Twin Lakes. 2. The road proposed for the peninsula is much too narrow and will create a safety hazard. 3. The road on the peninsula will not meet the 75 foot setback required for impervious surfaces. rlb Special Meeting of the City CounCil June 2,1997 Page 4 Continued Discussion - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development 4. The springs on the peninsula need to be protected from destruction during construction and that has not been provided for. 5. The density on the peninsula is too great. 6. The proposed cul-de-sac on the peninsula is below City standards and will create a safety hazard. 7. The peninsula may include a protected bluff; the measurements taken of the bluff lines on the peninsula have not been.adequate. 8. The soils on the peninsula are seriously deficient and building on them will cause a substantial degradation of the environment of the peninsula itself and the surrounding lakes. Adjournment Mayor Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Mary E. Anderson, Mayor Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary ,~~'. R t. . ,-". ~ ... r .. .... .~, } . . . . Regular Meeting of the City Council June 3, 1997 Page 3 . Council Member LeSuer stated he would like the Council to make an amendment to the . action taken on this matter by the Council at a prior meeting held on June 2. Allen Barnard reviewed the process for the Council to consider an amendment an action previously taken. Council Member LeSuer withdrew his amendment. MOVED by Micks, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to continue the public item for the preliminary design plan approval for PUD #74, Hidden Lakes Development to a Special Meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, 1997. . uer, seconde yor Pro Tem t ance Aid Payabl ell and motion e Certification 98. uthorize the asures for 11.~ . ., - . /1. ij III ~. r- Riular Meeting of the City Council J 17, 1997 Page 5 Mayor and Council Communications Mayor Anderson requested the Council Members to let staff know if they have any changes to the schedule or let her know if they have any agenda items they would like discussed at a future meeting. Those Council Members who attended the League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference reviewed some of the items they found of interest. Mayor Anderson stated she and Council Member LeSuer will have a recommendation on Council salaries available for the next meeting. _< --.-..L"lll"1-JILW1.JIl......~ _ . Mayor Anderson reviewed her memo regarding cancellation of the continued meeting on the Hidden Lakes plan. Council Micks stated she has met with the developer, feels there may be a compromise that has been reached and recommends the Council meet on June 19. Allen Barnard distributed copies, and read a memo from John Shardlow outling the .ia and concerns of the developer. There was general consensus by the Council that they not cancel the Special City Council meeting and that the document submitted be used as a basis for proceeding with clarification of the issue related to commencement of Phase II of the development. The City Attorney was requested to draft the appropriate motion for Council consideration at the Special City Council meeting. Adjournment MOVED by Russell, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: . Nally, Administrative Secretary J3/ ,. . ,Y ,. '; 't . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24,.1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak; absent was Groger. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - February 10, 1997 MOVED by Pentel, seconded by and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 10, 1997 minutes as submitted with one spelling correction on page three. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan MaR Address: 4121-4147 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To change the designation of the subject property from Semi-Public Facilities to Low Density Residential III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Hidden Lakes Development Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP Address: 4121-4147 Golden Valley Road (portion of Golden Valley Health Center site) Purpose: Rezoning of the subject property from Institutional to Residential Chair Prazak informed the commission that the Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning would be considered and voted on before the PUD Preliminary Design Plan is heard. Commissioner Lewis questioned the process of making a motion on these two items before hearing the PUD request. Commissioner Kapsner wanted it made clear to the audience, that if the Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning are approved, this does not mean that the commission will automatically approve the PUD request. Commissioner Pentel asked the Chair if there would be one informal public hearing for both the Plan Map amendment and the Rezoning and then another informal public hearing for the review of the Preliminary Design Plan. Chair Prazak answered yes. Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map -- Director Mark Grimes outlined on a zoning map, the portion of property being reviewed. He then reviewed.the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (Plan Map) and told commission that an amendment to , \ >II Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Two . Plan Map must be followed by a rezoning of the subject property. The reason for the Plan Map amendment is that the underlying use of the subject property is semi-public and there needs to be consistency between the Plan Map and the Zoning Map. The applicant has requested the City to amend its Plan Map from Semi-Public to Low Density Residential for that portion of the proposed Hidden Lakes PUD that will be used for residential development. Grimes talked about the Plan Mapas a gUide to City uses. He noted that if an amendment to the Plan Map is approved by the City Council, an amendment request would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review, which is required under State law. Grimes continued saying that the Met Council has the responsibility of determining what, if any, effects the proposed development may have on the metropolitan systems such as highways, sewers, regional parks and airports. Final action on the Hidden Lakes development cannot be given by the City Council until comments have been received back by the Met Council on the Plan Map amendment. This review process can take anywhere from 2 weeks toa couple of months. Director Grimes told the commission that the administration section of City Code does not give much direction as for review of the Plan Map. Grimes talked about traffic and access on Golden Valley Road. A major concern is traffic, in that there is only one access in and out Of the development off of Golden Valley Road. Staff believes that a use other than low- density could cause a greater traffic problem on Golden Valley Road. The proposed development will share the only access with the Courage Center, THC, and the Neurological building. . Director Grimes noted that the Comprehensive Plan states that 17% of the City is guided for institutional use. With the reduction of 68 acres of institutional land, found in the proposed development, 16% total acreage remains in this category. He said the property had been on the market for several years, to be used as an institutional use, with no potential buyers. Because the property is located on two lakes, the land is very valuable, and may have cost more than a potential institutional buyer would want to. pay. Staff believe there is a need for additional residential property because the City is fully developed. Any significant new residential development, in the City,. can only occur with redevelopment or changing of land uses on a specific site. City staff have received calls from interested individuals and developers indicating an interest in residential development properties. The proposed property is a prime site due to its close proximity to downtown Minneapolis and the lakes it is located next to. Director Grimes commented that this development would help the City fulfill only a portion of its Livable Communities goals, in that it would provide needed life-cycle housing for the community. Grimes said the development is relatively low density with about 2.6 units per acre, which is similar to most single family developments in Golden Valley. The housing proposed for this site will not help the City meet its Livable Communities affordability goal . because of the higher price tag on the townhomes and single family units. . . . , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Three Grimes told the commission that the proposed, low-density, residential development is one of the best types of development for this site because of its environmental sensitive area, especially due to its steep slopes and location next to Twin and Sweeney Lakes. The coverage of lots, with impervious surfaces, is less than most other types of development. Staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment for the Hidden Lakes Development from Semi-Public Facilities to Low Density Residential. Rezoning -- Director Grimes reviewed the portion of Hidden Lakes development to be rezoned from Institutional (1-3) to Residential. Grimes talked about the residential district providing for single-family detached units and that although the developer is proposing townhome units, the overall density is in the low density category of 2.6 units per acre. He said that staff recommends the Residential zoning district because it is most appropriate for this type of development, being low density. With the PUD process, consideration of other forms of residential uses can be used, such as townhomes, where a single use application is too rigid for practical application. Staff is in favor of the PUD process because it provides more sensitive site utilization minimizing effects on the natural environmental and providing a variety of housing. Staff recommends a rezoning of the subject property from Institutional to Residential. Commissioner Kapsner asked staff what would happen to the existing PUD if the commission approved the rezoning and the Plan Map amendment and denied the proposed amendment to PUD 45. He also asked if the PUD has to match the zoning of the property, which is currently institutional. Director Grimes said the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and the Council would make a decision regarding the Plan Map amendment and rezoning of the proposed property. Commissioner Pentel said that she was unclear on exactly what portion of the existing PUD would be rezoned and what areas of the Plan Map would be amended. Pentel would like to know the ownership of the other properties in the PUD, and finally, could staff explain the number of trips that THC is generating in terms of traffic. Director Grimes explained what areas of the existing PUD would be changed. Grimes reviewed the existing PUD 45, noting that portions of the Courage Center and Neurology Center, which are within PUD 45, will remain institutional and all of the THC site will remain institutional. Pentel asked, in reference to the THC site, with different zonings next to each other does this change or alter the setbacks and if this were not a PUD, what would the setback requirements be. Grimes said that if the property were not a PUD, there would be setback requirements between institutional and residential properties. City Planner Beth Knoblauch said institutional setbacks.are universal in that the building setback is 50 feet, 25 feet for parking, and 35 feet from a public street; changing the zoning, if this were not a PUD, would not make a difference. , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Three . Chair Prazak asked staff to explain semi-public and institutional uses. Grimes commented that semi-public language is associated with the Plan Map and are uses such as hospitals, clinics or institutions. Institutional is a designation in the Zoning Code and are uses such as private clubs, hospitals, resthomes, nursing homes and clinics. Pentel asked why the rezoning would be residential instead of two-family (R-2). She asked staff if potential buyers would own individual lots? Grimes said yes, the attached townhomes would be ownership. John Shardlow, representative for Hidden Lakes told the Commission that they would not be making a presentation at this time but would be presenting at the time of the Preliminary Design Plan review. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, commented that the Plan Map amendment is fine and that the single-family zoning is the norm and a good idea. He believes that it is inappropriate to rezone the entire site single-family residential. Maynard showed a colored site plan and commented that he believes it is two projects: 1) the peninsula and lakeview . homes is a substantial detached neighborhood, and 2) the upper area which have duplexes and on small lots. He said, one can see it is two developments by looking at the street system and how the streets separate. Mr. Maynard talked about single family development on the peninsula and the upper area being R-2. Chair Prazak told Mr. Maynard that he did not understand the distinction that he was trying to make between the PUD designation between the two areas and having separate zonings. Director Grimes told Mr. Maynard and the commission that it was not the developer, but staff who recQJt1mended the entire area be zoned residential. Maynard said there should be two zonings districts for this site, single-family and duplexes. Chair Prazak asked if he was saying that the upper part of the development should be a PUD but the lower part meet single-family zoning standards and not be a part of the proposed PUD. Commissioner Kapsner asked if everyone was going to own their own lot and Grimes answered yes. Commissioner McAleese questioned whether this issue is a discussion that should happen at the preliminary design plan stage. He said that if the recommendation is to change the Plan Map and underlying zoning, the Planning Commission could recommend against a PUD for the entire site or part of the site. Commissioner Pentel commented that if the zoning is changed, will this preclude any other opportunities. She continued asking that if the PUDis denied, what will happen to the site due to the commission's recommended approval of a Plan Map amendment and a rezoning . of the property. , . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Five Commissioner Kapsner recommended that the informal public hearing be continued before the commission made comments and asked questions. Thomas Zins, 8925 23rd Avenue North, said that he had a procedure questions. He said that the Park Board had past a resolution suggesting that land be set aside for.public park. He asked staff if the rezoning eliminates the dedication of park land. Director Grimes said that if there is subdivision of land in the City of Golden Valley, no matter if its a single-family or a townhome development, there would still need to be a dedication of park land or a cash dedication made in lieu ota land dedication. This is a decision of the City Council. Don Paquette, .2000 Aquila Avenue North, asked if the approval of the Plan Map and Rezoning constituted approval of the Hidden Lakes Project. Chair Prazak answered no. Richard Peet, 3245 Noble Avenue North, believes that once the rezoning is changed, no other alternatives will be available and that the preliminary design plan should be discussed also. He is not in favor of split zoning and being locked out of semi-pubic use. He does not believe there is a need for more housing or businesses in Golden Valley. Jack Mogelson, 1131 Toledo Avenue North, believes the zoning issues are complicated and all three issues should be reviewed together. He questioned the developer's request for this land to be a PUD by setting aside regulations for building, and why is there a concern that something other than what was presented would be built. Mogelson also was concerned that the development will cut off his access to the lakes. He noted that some people had little information and other people had more information and those people wanted to know if there is a rush to complete the development and can the process be done in a sequential way so information is available for discussions and then deal with. the issues over a period of time and not run to conclusions. Director Grimes commented that the Plan Map and Rezoning must be decided before the PUD because the PUD must be consistent with the Plan Map and zoning for the property. Grimes noted that family dwellings cannot be placed on an institutional site. Commissioner Lewis commented that she would feel more comfortable making a recommendation on the Plan Map, Rezoning, and the Preliminary Design Plan all at once. Lewis noted that there is uncertainty that the PUD would pass and then the land would be rezoned to residential. Commissioner Kapsner suggested the Chair close the informal public hearing before discussions of the commission take place. Floyd Anderson, 4920 Kilarney Drive, noted that he lives on Sweeney Lake and was a physician at Glenwood Hospital for a short time. He said that as much as he would like to see the land remain as it is, he realizes there is a new owner and need for redevelopment. Anderson believes there is no hope to use the property for institutional in the future and also has the wish for the land to be used as residential, and would like to see what would be the most private use for the land, ie residential use. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Six . David Fellman, 1540 St.Croix Circle suggested the property be rezoned to R-1 and then discuss the PUD. He stated that this item is a complicated issue because of the institutional sites included in the PUD. Chair Prazak said that the Planning Commission would be discussing only those portions of the property that are not under the control of Courage Center, THC or Neurological Center. Leslie Foltz-Morrison, 1840 Spring Valley Circle, asked if the Planning Commission had a goal in mind for this area before the Hidden Lakes project came along. Foltz-Morrison wanted to know what the City's dreams and hopes are for the proposed site. John Shardlow, representative for Hidden Lakes and planner for DSU, told the commission that the developers would come forward with the presentation of the Preliminary Design Plan. He told the commission that if the proposed PUD is approved the development would then proceed with what was specifically outlined in the PUD. The plan being proposed is lower than R-1 density and the developer is comfortable with this plan. Ifit would be the Planning Commissions intent to have two designations of R-1 and R-2 the developer would still come forward with a PUD for the entire site. David Kline, 4700 Kilarney Drive, urged the commission to reject the proposed rezoning, and consider it for park property. . Jack Mogelson, 1131 Toledo Avenue North, commented that he had not heard a response to whether he would have access to Twin Lake with the ability to get there by land. Chair Prazak informed Mr. Mogelson that this issue would be addressed at the time the Preliminary Design Plan is discussed. Paul Wanous, 2200 Legend Drive, briefly talked about the area, and would not walk the proposed property and parts of Wirth Parkway. Wanous said that he does not want to see the peninsula developed as park land. He would rather have his property value increase due to homes on the proposed site. He asked about public access for citizens of Golden Valley to the lakes. Director Grimes told Mr. Wanous that the proposed site is private property with no access, access. can be obtained to Twin Lake from Wirth Park and access on the west side of Sweeney Lake via a 15 foot easement and a lot owned by the. City of Golden Valley. Wanous asked if these accesses were part of the proposal and Grimes said no. Commissioner McAleese asked staff to clarify whether there is no access to the lakes across the PUD. Grimes answered no. Commissioner McAleese asked staff if the issue of access would be affected by amending the Plan Map or rezoning of the property. Grimes answered no. Grimes noted that access to the lakes could be part of the discussion when the commission reviews the preliminary design plan. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Pentel readdressed Mr. Zins issue of the Park Broad's recommendation for . dedication of park land if the proposed property is rezoned to residential. Pentel noted that . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Seven the zoning map notes a special zoning designation for park land, but in rezoning the entire property residential, does this preclude park land in the PUD. Grimes noted that the City Council would take the steps, at its meeting, to rezone a portion of the PUD to park land. City Planner Beth Knoblauch said that given the fact that this a PUD, it may not be strictly necessary, should a park be established there, to specifically zone it to park land because the PUD allows mixtures of uses not allowed under strict zoning laws. Pentel also asked whether the building at the entry point, which is not residential, will not be a problem under the residential zoning. Grimes noted that with a PUD there can be a mixture of uses that are complementary to the primary use of the development. Chair Prazak commented that the proposed amendment to the Plan Map and rezoning is most appropriate and reasonable because it will have the least intense use of the property as possible, and will generate the least amount of traffic and impact on the area. Commissioner Johnson agreed with Chair Prazak's statement and said that it is a significant factor that no one is interested in an institutional use and believes the switch to low density and request for a rezoning is appropriate. Commissioner Kapsner commented on the "dream" of the property. He said that a "dream" for the land would be a park, but is not realistic in that the City doesn't have the money available for this type of use. He agreed with Mr. Wanous that he does not want his taxes raised in order to make the proposed site park land. Kapsner said that when looking at traffic on Duluth and at the interchange for Hwy. 1 DO, low density housing would be the best use for the property. Commissioner McAleese concurred. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map frorn Semi~Public Facilities to Low Density Residential. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to rezone a portion of the Golden Valley Health Center Site from Institutional to Residential, with the exception of the three parcels that will remain Institutional. Commissioner Lewis asked staff for an explanation of how the zoning map would change and Grimes explained that the appropriate designation would be shown on the map. III. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 45 Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP Address: 4101-4147 Golden Valley Road (Portion of Golden Valley Health Center Site) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Eight . Request: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan which would allow for the construction of 176 residences in detached and attached construction styles on a portion of the P.U.D. Planning Director Mark Grimes summarized his staff report by telling the commission that Hidden lakes Development has presented a proposal which includes 67.8 acres of a total 79.5 acres, which is in the Golden Valley Health Center PUD No. 45. He noted that the . acres being discussed are all above the Ordinary High Water level (OHWl) of Sweeney lake. Grimes noted that the existing PUD allows for only institutional uses, however the proposed amendment to the PUD is for a mixed use of residential and institutional uses which includes portions of the Courage Center, Neurology Clinic, and all of the THC hospital. Hidden lakes Development is proposing the construction of 41 single-family homes, 25 detached "golf-villa" homes and 110 townhomes, totally 176 units. Director Grimes noted that the Golden Valley Health Center ceased its operation in 1992. He told the commissioners that the THC hospital would continue to operate at its present location at the south end of the site. Grimes stated that the proposed PUD may now go forward for preliminary design plan review because of action taken by the City Council, at its meeting of February 4, 1997, regarding the review of the Environmental Assessment . Worksheet (EAW) and negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and now the motion made by the Planning Commission, at this meeting, to recommend approval of the Plan Map and Rezoning has been approved. Director Grimes brought up the issue of this application being eligible for a PUD. The City staff and the City Attorney have determined that the application is complete and the Hidden lakes Development application can be considered for an amendment to the PUD for single- family use and institutional uses. Grimes read the City Attorney's letter to the Planning Commission r~garding the appropriateness of using a PUD for this proposal. Director Grimes told the Planning Commission that they are being asked to consider the first stage of a two stage PUD process -- the first stage being the Preliminary Design Plan review. Grimes explained the procedure for public hearings saying that the City Council will hold a formal public hearing on the Preliminary Design Plan after receiving the Planning Commission recommendation. If the City Council approves this plan, the developer will proceed to prepare a General Plan of Development which will go before the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission will be looking at the broad concept of the preliminary design plan and the recommendation can include any changes it feels necessary. Director Grimes reviewed a memo submitted by Jeff Oliver, Assistant City Engineer. He talked about several issues, which must be reviewed as part of development, and about specific requirements as part of the PUD. He said that the engineering memo should be made a part of the approval by the Planning Commission. Grimes then commented on portions of the memo as follows: (1) final tree preservation plan be made a part of the PUD . which identifies trees on the site and trees which should be saved, and look at lots and where houses can be moved around to save quality trees on lots; (2) multiple access to . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Nine neighborhood clusters for emergency vehicle access; (3) provide appropriate easements for utilities, storm water ponds and emergency vehicle access to be approved by the City; (4) At the EAW review, several residents were concurred with seeps and springs on the peninsula, a plan must be submitted minimizing the effect of development on these seeps and springs; (5) submit an erosion control plan prior to the start of construction, subject to review and approval by the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization; (6) move villas closer to the front of the properties to keep them away from the steep slopes to the rear of the lots which will minimize the impact to the steep slopes to the east; (7) the City will require conservation easements in various locations to protect wooded slopes, especially to the southeast portion, including shoreland and wetland areas. Commissioner McAleese asked Grimes to explain what a conservation easement was. Grimes said a conservation easement is an easement along environment sensitive areas of the development where restriction of development will occur. It notes where trees and natural vegetation must be preserved, type of access to the lakes in those areas, limits the amount of clear cut space at each of the lake front lots, sharing boat dockage, etc.; (8) look at alternatives for filling wetland areas and submit justification for filling wetland area; (9) provide plan for maintenance of yards and common areas. Grimes noted that the developer will be hiring only one maintenance company which should help reduce the use of phosphorus fertilizers throughout the development; and (10) submit a landscaping plan for the entire area. Staff is proposing that the City and DNR restrict Twin Lake to non-motorized boats with possible exception for electric motors. Mr. Oliver's memo also says that the City Council should address the use of only non-motorized boats, and as part of the bridge revitalization, provide portage of canoes. Grimes noted that this engineering memo should be made a part of the P.U.D., if it is approved. Director Grimes talked about development of the peninsula commenting that it is 9 acres in size. The developer is proposing 10 single family lots accessed by private road. (Grimes noted that all streets in the development are private.) The existing house on the peninsula will be removed. He commented on the purpose of the Shoreland Management Code which is to regulate the subdivision, use, and development of shoreland in Golden Valley in order to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, reserve the economic and natural environmental values of the shorelands and provide for the wise utilization of waters and related land resources. Grimes noted that the DNR will have review of the final plans, and they have given preliminary approval of the concept plans. The DNR stated in its comment letter regarding the EAW that the "evaluation of the modified project in a shoreland management context, inclUding the proposed peninsula development, leads us to conclude that the project is consistent with the applicable shoreland management standards as administered by the City of Golden Valley". Grimes said that the developer has stated that no variances are required from the shoreland management code in order to permit development of the peninsula. Lots meet the width and setbacks from the OHWL. He said that one concern, made by several commenters, is that the private road maintain the 50 foot requirement from the OHWL. Grimes noted that if the.OHWL could not be maintained, there would need to be a reduction of lots on the peninsula. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Ten . The Planning Commission must also considered the effect of the private road on the overall natural environment, and. if the road is approved, landscaping alternatives or engineering features that could be employed to soften the presence of the roadway. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission examine the storm water runoff plan, when reviewing the peninsula road, noting Section 11.65, Subd. 5(C). Grimes said that the runoff will be directed northward to a storm water management pond, where it can be treated before running into Sweeney or Twin Lake. Grimes briefly talked about filling of a wetland .area on the peninsula and staff's position is that the wetland area not be filled. Grimes stated that the readability of the survey submitted by the developer, as determined by the City Engineer and City Attorney, is valid. Grimes talked about traffic considerations noting that a traffic study was done using the density of 176 housing units on the subject property and that the development would not decrease the level of service on Golden Valley Road. Staff has looked at other accesses into the development from the east, west or south. The Minneapolis Park Board has notified staff that they will not permit any access from the east or south. Grimes briefly talked about park dedication and referred to a letter from the Open Space & Recreation Commission recommending open space on the development. In particular, the Board is recommending a tot lot, open space dedication, fishing pier, parking lot and canoe launch. Grimes noted that the Comprehensive Plan, which the staff looks for guidance,says the City should investigate access that would not cause an adverse impact on the surrounding residents. the Plan notes that the existing park system is sufficient to serve the present population. Grimes said that there will be a public walkway or trail through the length of the PUD that will connect to the edge of Wirth Park on the south. The City will try to coordinate y.lith the Minneapolis Park Board on the trail system. Staff is suggesting that a sign be placed at the entrance of the development so the public doesn't feel they are crossing private property by using. the trail system. Staff is also suggesting that the trail system, through the development, be dedicated to the City by easement. . Grimes told the commission that the City has adopted the Livable Communities housing goals, and the City is making efforts to meet its goals. The project helps achieve one of the goals of life-cycle housing for the City, but it does not meet the affordable housing or increased housing density goal. Grimes noted the development did submit a list of variance categories, ie. building setback, street width, cul-de-sac length, etc. He told the commission that allowing differences from "normal" zoning is the function of the PUD process which allows for the development of a better plan for the site and the City as a whole. The PUD section of the zoning code states that it is the intent of this section of the code to allow design flexibility, with SUbstantial. variances from provisions of the Zoning Code. The function of the zoning code is to set minimal standards. Grimes commented that in the case of clustered housing development, . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Eleven such as Hidden Lakes, it may not meet standard zoning requirements. However, the overall density of development would remain low and the effect of the buildings on surrounding areas would be minimal.. Director Grimes said that staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Design Plan provided that the issues outlined in Asst. City Engineer Oliver's memo be addressed, along with the recommendation from the Planning Commission on park dedication. and the density of development of the peninsula. As noted in the staff memo, the Planning Commission can suggest changes that would improve and enhance the development and that they can call out specific issues for additional review and possible revision. Commissioner Kapsner asked if there were any instructions on the size of the parking area that would go along with what the Park Board is suggesting for public areas. Grimes commented that a small parking area would be appropriate. Commissioner Lewis asked if the City was spending any taxpayer money on the site. Grimes commented no, that the developer is paying for the total development of the site. Commissioner Pentel commented on the variances, noting that they were not enumerated on but that the commission received supplemental materials outlining the variances from the public. Pentel asked if staff was in concurrence that this is an accurate list of variances being requested. Grimes commented that if the commission were considering single-family zoning, the list submitted would be the variances required. He continued by saying that this development is not for single-family zoning, but a PUD, which allows for changes as part of the PUD. Commissioner McAleese commented that the staff and attorney have determined that PUD is appropriate~ But the City Code says that the Planning Commission and City Council must interpret the code and that if people want to speak concerning the issue of the PUD, it is appropriate. John Shardlow, representative for Hidden Lakes and Architect for DSU, introduced himself, the developer, Bob Schmidt, the Project Manager, Bill Huser and Kevin VonRiedel who is with the engineering company working on this project. He presented materials to the commission. He commented on the ownership of the PUD and that the Courage Center, Neurology Clinic, and THC want to be included in the PUD. He also said that since the completion of the EAW hearing, contracts have been executed between the developer and builders for the project. Mr. Shardlow named those companies involved. Shardlow noted that the item before the Planning Commission was for concept approval. He said that the concept is a bit tighter than needed because they have been working on grading plans and the concept plan could be loosen up, and find private open space and shared facilities within development. He told the commission that he had prepared the original PUD 45 in 1984. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twelve Shardlow gave a narrative of his work background. He reviewed the EAW process that had taken place which was reviewed by the City Council at its meeting of February 4, 1997. Shardlow commented that the documentation required in Asst. Jeff Oliver's memo, the restrictions that the developer is volunteering to do, plus conditions noted by staff, would make this development one of the most regulated developments inthe City, before, during and after construction. He continued talking about the process of the EAW and comments made on the EAW. Shard low showed a color plan of the original Golden Valley Health Center PUD 45. He talked about the reserving of open spaces and those spaces were reserved on the original PUD. He reviewed numerous location maps and site plans ofthe project noting the relationship of the development to Wirth Park and Sweeney and Twin Lakes. Shardlow talked about the grading,. demolition of buildings, and removal of asbestos on the. site. In showing some of the plans, Shard low commented on the numerous constraints to the development, such as the prominent hills with steep slopes, the small area of bluffs and the peninsula, which is very narrow and will need to be approached with great care. He reviewed where homes and townhomes would be located. He also talked about the entrance into the development and the shared entries to the Neurological Clinic and Courage Center and a trail system through the development. He discussed the cluster development where the existing hospital is now located, the lake side homes and staggered lots to provide a lake side view. Shardlow talked about the enhancement to the bridge to support vehicles. He again touched on park dedication of either cash or land. He noted an area on a plan, indicating the amountof park land requested by the Open Space and Rec Commission, and that it is not economically feasible to accommodate the amount wanted. He questioned whether there were alternative solutions that might provide access into Twin Lake and trail to the community. Shardlow reviewed an aerial plan outlining the trail system around the development and how this might be connected to and through the development and to give access to Twin and Sweeney Lakes. He addressed the nuisance area of Wirth Park, and. public access to the area from Twin Lake and Sweeney Lake. If there would be public access to Sweeney Lake at the north end of the site, the Neurological Clinic is concerned about the overflow of cars to their lot. The developer says there are things they can and cannot do and is willing to work with the City to resolve the park land issue for everyone's benefit. He reviewed site data, density, land coverage area, and housing density information. Shardlow reviewed a plan outlining the area covered by land and water. He noted the one access into the property and discussed private roads, long cul-de-sacs, turn around and variances for the streets. He reviewed a site plan submitted by Mr. Hugh Maynard talking about the requested variances. He told the commission that all single-family homes would be sprinklered. He noted that Outlots A and.B, on the existing.PUD No. 45, are reserved open space, not preserved open space, and not dedicated.Shardlow said that the City has no right, as a result of PUD 45 to maintain the open space in perpetuity. Shardlowtalked about the prinCiples that guide the redesign process, ie. maximum site development, the reasons/benefits of the PUD approach, and the purpose of shoreland . . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Thirteen management (as outlined in the presentation booklet). He said that the intent of DNR not to make developable property, undevelopable, but to guide how development would occur in shoreland areas. Shard low briefly talked about the development of shoreland and meeting objectives. He reviewed a plan of the peninsula and summarized the shoreland management objectives for the peninsula development The DNR recently looked at the proposed development of the peninsula, analyzed it and concluded that the DNR would be inclined to approve the project when submitted for final approval at a later date. He told the commission that the wetland on the peninsula would not be filled. In conclusion Shardlow talked about what was reasonable. He said that the privately owned property had been on the market for some time. He said that the opponents to the development need to weigh their opinions and understand what is reasonable. The developer is committed to working with the City on the development. He continued talking about the beauty of the land, the constraints to development and the cost for development. Shard low said that they were presenting a concept with room for improvement, and that it is not reasonable to say "no" to any use of this property. They believe the development, before the commission, is a good one and will work with the City through its full development. Chair Prazak thanked Mr. Shardlow for the graphics which helped in Mr. Shardlow's presentation of the proposed development. Commissioner Kapsner brought up a previous speaker's (Mr. Mogelson) concern about changes coming later because the impression was left that City would approve something and then changed the development later without input. His question to Shardlow was, that to your knowledge is there something you know about the development that will not be doable? Shardlow said it is the developer, City staff's opinion that project is feasible and everything caD be worked out in the detailed development stage. Shardlow noted that he heard the question a little differently, that of "bait and switch". He said that any change in the approved plan, with significant departure from the approved plan, would require an amendment to the PUD. Commissioner Lewis asked if parking would be allowed on the private roads in the development. Shardlow said no on-street parking is proposed at this time, but it can be discussed at the development stage. Commissioner Johnson asked if there had been any concerns raised because of the proximity to Wirth Park. Shard low answered yes. Johnson asked if there have been any questions in regards to the development and have any steps been taken. Shardlow said it was an on-going issue and the development team will be in dialogue with the City of Golden Valley and City of Minneapolis on this issue. Johnson asked if there would be any additional lighting in the area that borders the development and Wirth Park; Shardlow answered yes. Johnson asked if the developer is working on any agreements with the City of Minneapolis regarding security in the Wirth Park area or is this between the cities to negotiate. Shardlow responded that it would be between the cities, but if the developer is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Fourteen . successful in getting a trail extended, and designed properly,it would move more people through the area and increase security in the area. Commissioner Pentel commented that it was good to see that canoes would be able to go over the road at the bridge area and asked if the public would be able to fish from the bridge. Shardlow answered yes. Pentel asked if the City would plow the streets. Shardlow said the development would be handling the maintenance. Commissioner McAleese noted that the single-family homes would be sprinkled and asked if the town homes will have sprinkler systems. Project Manager Bill Huser commented that he was not certain and is still working with builders, and the fire department, and referred to Jeff Oliver's memo concerning this issue. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Jane McDonald Black, 924 Adeline Lane North, commented that she was the previous president of the Sweeney Lake Association but was not representing the Association now. She commented that she was in favor of the development in considering what other uses could have been built on the site. McDonald Black said that the concentration should be on the big picture and believes this development will be a "positive" and affirming to the. area keeping in mind the Wirth Park area that was just in the news; that it provides a good tax base for the City; and helps the entire school district. She questioned whether "variance" is a dirty word and doesn't believe it is. She received a variance from the City on her property and neighbors were in favor of it. She said variances are important and gives flexibility. McDonald Black said that if we get too strict with the rules on flexibility the City looses as much as the developer. She believes that City staff has done a good job working with the developer and hopes this continues. . Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, noted that he was part of an adhoc group whose theme is to preserve Twin Lake and members of the group would be speaking after him. Maynard talked about having only two homes, with large lots, on the peninsula (existing home and another) sharing a long driveway and that the remainder of the peninsula be dedicated as preserved, not "reserved", open space. He said that it doesn't matter how the land was preserved, either through park dedication or owned by the homeowners association or privately. He noted that there should be a minimal number of houses on the bluff, and there should be no filling of wetlands and no other development that would endanger Twin Lake. Maynard presented the next six speakers in his group. Maynard said he would at the end address variances, whether a custom family-home project is a valid use of the PUD ordinance, shoreland ordinance and open space. Corey Austed, 1241 Toledo Avenue, talked about deeded lake access. She noted that she was a medical consultant and outdoor enthusiast. She bought her house because of where it is located and uses this area as an inter-city wilderness. She said she has been on the . subject property a lot and the idea of having a canoe portage over the bridge is problematic, in that this particular area is very swampy. She said she portages over to the peninsula . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Fifteen because of the dry land, but the muck is still about a foot deep. She says this is a wild area with lots of swampy area and "not" sandy beaches. Austed talked about the wild life on the peninsula, walking her dog along the railroad tracks to Wirth Park and then to the bluff area, on the subject property, to see the gorgeous view. She said she enjoys the peacefulness of the area and the sunsets. Austed said that she uses the area for cross-country skiing, by going across. the lake, oVer the peninsula and then to Wirth Park. She noted that when she canoes, she carries the canoe down to Sweeney Lake, follows the shoreline to enjoy the wildlife, but if they want to swim, they portage over the peninsula to Twin Lake because the water is much more pure compared to Sweeney Lake. People use the subject property for access for swimming and fishing, and the Courage Center residents also enjoy the view of the lakes. Austed said that "enjoyment" depends on the remoteness of the area. She noted her concern that the proposed private roads preclude access to the peninsula and remaining property in the development. She said that if the development is approved, she will not be able to do the activities as noted above. Austed gave the commission signed petitions, against the development of the peninsula, and reviewed a map of what areas these petitions were gathered from. She would like to see the peninsula maintained as open space. She said that she and her husband did not visit homes around the lake but farther away when getting signatures on the petition, and noted that people told her they were not receiving information from the City on the development. She commented on the reasons why people were in favor of the development. Austed also commented that if another 176 homes were built in the area this could cause problems using the tennis courts at Schied Park. Austed talked about the EAWand believes the developer did not divulge the existence of a dump on the site or how they will deal with this area. She talked about the 55 gallon drum of "Raid" found on the site and other debris in the snow and the damage that could have been done. Austed said that she does not want the developer to pay a cash payment for open space, but wants the land to be preserved for open space and does not want development that will come so close to the water and natural areas. Chair Prazak questioned what area of the development the petition is centered on. Austed answered the petition is for the peninsula not the bluffs. Commissioner Lewis asked her to respond again about the use of the tennis courts, which Austed did as noted above. Commissioner Johnson asked if she handed in two petitions. Austed noted that there were two different forms, and some names were on both lists, but it was noted on the petition. Joe Novotny, 4120 Golden Valley Road, commented that he was a Water Quality Professional in water chemistry but was not representing his employer. His presentation is on treatment plans relative to the planning process of the Hidden Lakes Development. It will consist of a water chemistry discussion and his concerns about whether the desired effect of water treatment will be achieved, and issues to considered relative to the planning process for water quality protection and development planning. Novotny talked about eutrophication and run-off and how the two work together. Eutrophication is the natural death process of lakes by sedimentation and plant decay; it is irreversible. When a limiting . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Sixteen . chemical constituent is introduced into the watershed, it throws the equilibrium off balance and accelerates the eutrophication process. In this area, the limiting chemical constituent is orthophosphorus, which is found in fertilizers and detergents. At worst, the ponds as proposed appear to be inadequate to protect Sweeney and Twin Lakes from eutrophication. At best, the water treatment information is inadequate to make an educated decision at this time. He talked about water treatment when designing municipal water treatment plant: 1)primary, removing suspended solids; 2) secondary, removal of the oxygen demand that the waste water will be exerting on the body of water that it is being sent into; and 3) tertiary, removal of nutrients. Most treatment plants deal only with primary and secondary treatment. His main concern is nutrient removal, which is tertiary treatment and needs to be addressed in a unique manner. Talked about tables in the EAW concerning total suspended solids (ie sand, silt runoff) and total phosphorous. Tables showed tremendous decrease in total suspended phosphorus by treatment ponds and that is what is expected. They also showed excellent reduction of total phosphorous. The tables have a bias toward suspended particulates; they do not address orthophosphorus or dissolved nutrients. For example, take a bowl of water, representing a treatment pond. Add sand and gravel to . represent suspended solids. Add salt and sugar to represent nutrients. Stir it up, then let it settle until the water clears. Then pour the water into a second bowl, representing a lake. The sand and gravel stay behind, but the salt and sugar have dissolved into the water and so pass into the second bowl. There is no settling process for dissolved nutrients. Summary: design of development should consider addressing the following water quality parameters: orthophosphorus; nitrogen compounds; oxygen demand; ethylene glycol, the principal ingredient in anti-freeze; benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethyl benzene, the major constituents of fuels for cars. All of these will wash into the ponds with run~off water and pass into the lakes. In closing, each lake maintains a unique chemical and biological equilibrium; a universal standard of water quality and water treatment is inadequate and inappropriate in maintaining this balance and preventing eutrophication. Chair Prazak asked what the bottom line was. Mr. Novotny commented that additional questions need to be asked and addition data gathered in looking at the proposed water treatment plans for the development to ensure maintenance of the watershed. Commissioner Lewis asked if Mr. Novotny had any knowledge of preventing runoff of antifreeze and oils from cars on the peninsula into the waters. Mr. Novotny said that he was not an environmental planning consultant and this was out of his expertise. He said what he was addressing were water quality issues. Chair Prazak reiterated that he was trying to call attention to the need for closer examination of the process to assure clear water going into the lakes. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Seventeen Commissioner Kapsner asked the City Engineer if there are settling ponds for storm sewers on the west side of the lake, in the existing neighborhoods, or does the storm sewer go directly into the lake? City Engineer Fred Salsbury commented that most of the water goes directly into the lake. . David Fellman, 1540 St. Croix Circle, said that he would like to clear up a misconception regarding the road on the peninsula, that it is not 50 feet from the .OHWL of Sweeney Lake. Fellman stated that in the presentation before they skipped Lots 1, 2 and 3 which are less than 50 feet from Sweeney Lake and Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 are less than 50 feetfrom Twin Lake. Fellman talked about the developer saying that the road meets DNR standard for setbacks. He noted that the DNR does not have standards for setbacks. He reviewed a portion of the EAW noting that the road on the peninsula appears to meet the 50 foot setback as stated in the rules. Fellman noted that the rules are the Golden Valley rules which say, "in no instance shall the road be less than 50 feet". He talked. about visiting with Mr. Schmidt concerning the 50 foot setback and that they were measuring from the wrong area. Fellman talked about there being no survey showing the OHWL and that the developer superimposed on the survey the OHWL. He said that if the land were a foot higher it would be considered a protected bluff. He read material from the DNR which said that when you buy a piece of shore land always check with the local zoning officials to verify exact local requirements because they may be stricter than statewide standards. He told the commission that he wants to see that the developer is held to Golden Valley shoreline standards. Fellman briefly talked about park dedication on the existing PUD No. 45. Fellman told the commission that he wrote to the DNR and the City and talked with the developer about springs on the peninsula and that in January 16, 1997, 14 springs were found. He noted that the developer's expert reported that the springs are not recharged on the peninsula. Fellman talked about a letter from the developer's attorney concerning where the recharge of springs and seeps were located and that the. City Engineer was misinformed because they didn't know where the water was coming from. He noted that the letter from the expert said that it is more likely that the recharge of the springs and seeps comes from the off-site wetlands to the immediate northeast of Hidden Lakes. Mr. Fellman talked about the 50 gallon drum of "RAID" found on the site and wonders where the material inside went. He also addressed the protection of trees around the dynamic compaction site and believes that dirt is being pushed around and the developer is not being the stewards of the environment that they claim to be. He commented on the condition of the existing hospital site and showed a picture of where demolition took place and was left in a demolished state. Fellman believes what they did was illegal. . Fellman commented on a Phase II environmental report and believes that the developer does have it although he has been told there isn't one and that the City has never seen it. The Phase II report shows hazards on the site. He believes the spring issue is important because of the dynamic compaction area, which at one time was a dump, noting that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Eighteen . medical waste was dumped there for 30 years. Fellman told the commission that he had talked with two people who worked on the site and that the a dump is located under the compaction area and the soil is being disturbed because of the compaction. Fellman also said that a report by GME, from January, 1987 talked about 8 foot borings. Fellman noted that there is 40 feet of fill at this location. He told the commission to tell the PCA; they need to know about the dump site. He also recommends to the City Council the need for additional environmental work on "dump" area. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Fellman if he had an accurate map of the proposed development on the peninsula. Mr. Fellman reviewed a colored drawing provided by the developer and colored by Mr. Maynard, of where he believes the road lies. Mr. Fellman asked if the retaining wall was considered an impervious surface and never received .an answer from the developer or the City. He believes the retaining wall should be considered an impervious surface. He also believes the setbacks are incorrect. He told the commission that the land should be developed as R-1 and welcomes the new neighbors but challenges anyone who says that by the Golden Valley ordinance that the road is 50 feet. Chair Prazak said that this issue can be settled, as a matter of fact, at some point. Fellman says that he concedes that they did meet the DNR standard for road because there is no standard. Bob Mattison, 1120 Angelo Drive, commented on this complex development and has a simple component by asking if this development, as proposed, is an appropriate use for the peninsula specifically. He urged the commission to use their own common sense in land use planning. He referred to the Oliver memo in that it contains fundamental issues, that will be being considered down the line as part of the review. He told the commission to look at the 21 issues outlined as issues that need to be answered in order to answer if single family development is appropriate for development of the peninsula. . Mr. Mattison talked about grading and the damage it will cause to the lake and peninsula, and erosion that will take place. He believes there needs to be more details. He talked about the structural analysis of the bridge, and if a new bridge is necessary there will need to be excavation. He questioned storm and sanitary sewer and a lift station and wanted more information on who supports the lift station and how does it work. Mattison also wanted to know the placement of utilities and talked about the existing utilities that run through a tube under the bridge. He believes it is an essential issue to know where utilities will be placed. He questioned whether the emergency vehicle access is sufficient. He questioned whether single-family development is going to affect the quality of water going into Sweeney and Twin Lake. Mattison said that these are not details that need to be worked out by the engineering department but need to be answered by the commission. Mattison briefly mentioned the development helping out with the tax base, that things that sound too good to be true, usually are. He ended, commenting that Sweeney Lake is not like Minnetonka Lake and with the mucky lake bottom and lake shore, and the location of the development on a relatively small lake, and not allowing big boats on Sweeney, will someone spend a $1 million for a lot. He believes the City should be skeptical and get evidence. He is against the proposed development on the peninsula and asked the commission to look at the issues themselves and not rely on the experts. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Nineteen Faith Woodman, 1420 Spring Valley Road, said that she would be talking about how the Hidden Lakes Development is an abuse of the PUD process and how John Shardlow and Larkin Hoffman, who represented the Golden Valley Health Center PUD No. 45 and now represent Hidden Lakes Develop, have changed their tune since the original PUD was approved. She showed a map of the existing PUD No. 45 and said itwas a classic PUD. The developer received substantial variances in exchange for reserving substantial general open space (as noted on map). Woodman talked about the development of the existing PUD noting that the City got something tangible and significant for the variance it granted and that was the retention of large open spaces. She talked about Bob Schmidt buying the property and developing it intensely as possible so he and his investors could make as much money as possible with little concern for the nature landscape or the two lakes it borders. She said the developer of the proposed Hidden Lakes PUD offers no open space or amenities; only areas like bluffs and wetlands are being spared. She said that the only land he dedicates to the public is below the OHWL where there is very little dry land. She reviewed the developer's site plan for amenities such as streetscape treatment, entry pergolas, a concierge building, turn-around, wetland edge landscape treatment, a fountain and a entry gate for the owners, etc. Woodman questioned whether these amenities were suppose to justify the City's PUD approval with the wavier of hundreds of variances under normal zoning laws. Woodman talked about the amount of dirt to be moved on development and the harm it will cause to the natural habitat and wild life and ruin of the lakes. She agreed with Mr. Shardlow that this development would be the most heavily regulated because of the sensitive nature of the site. Ms. Woodman talked about the DNR's definition of open space and questioned how Shardlow and Larkin Hoffman could so drastically change their position, regarding open space, from the original PUD to the proposed PUD. Woodman referred to correspondence in the file from the original PUD concerning reserved open space in conjunction with medical facilit~s. She talked about a memo written by a former Planning Coordinator in regards to preserving open space in the event of future development. She requested the Planning Commission to reject the PUD application. Fred Hoisington, President of the Hoisington Kegler Group, briefly described his qualifications. He reviewed colored graphics and commented that he has known the site for many years and that it is a beautiful site~ He said that the entire peninsula is sloped except where the existing house is now located. The upper level is sloped and steep, and heavily wooded and is a very difficult site to develop, so it needs to be done right. Hoisington argued that more open space would be provided using conventional zoning and subdivision requirements than with the Hidden Lakes PUD. He noted that the DNR's criteria to define open space does not provide for real open space. Hoisington said that the proposed development exceeds the DNR standard for impervious surface cover. He also talked about the City getting nothing in return for the multitude of variances being requested . and that the PUD does not represent good land use planning. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty . Hoisington said that when looking at the proposed PUD and the application of conventional zoning and subdivision regulations, the later would produce more open space. He talked about what was proposed as open space, ie ponds, wetlands, steep slopes and bluffs noting that about 20% of the site represents protected open space and the remainder of open space is private yards. He discussed the private road system. He said the short driveway to the peninsula house should be allowed to remain. A loop street system would be needed on the main portion ofthe development which would cut down on the length of cul-de-sacs, but not all cul-de-sacs could be shortened. Hoisington talked about another access into the site going behind the Courage Center and to the east side, but this is not an ideal option. He said that with conventional zoning not all the lots would be 10,000 sq.ft. in size as stated in the single-family zoning district. He said the market would come into play and the lots would reflect what could be sold. He told the commission that the only way the peninsula could be developed was through a PUD or grant a multitude of variances outside the PUD which could not be justified. Hoisington commented that the site would get more protection with conventional zoning than through a PUD application. He again commented on the DNR definition of open space as the standard of adequacy for open space for this site, and is not disputing this but would remind the commission that the open spaces are wetlands, ponds, bluffs, steeps slopes, . shore impact zones and private yards but no usable open space. Hoisington said that the only common space is Outlot A and a few other areas. In regards to housing sites on the proposed development, the site warrants the maximum sensitivity and creativity. Hoisington talked about variances and the hard surface cover noting the DNR's requirement that no more than 25% of the properly be hard surface. He said the developer's. plan indicates that 28.7% of the site is hard surface. If the THC, Courage Center and Neurological Clinic are included, the hard surface would exceed 30%. Mr. Hoisington commented on what the City gets in return, which is not a great deal. The City is getting less open space when compared with the Golden Valley Health Center PUD. He said the commission should think about common open space which is usable for people as an important part ofthis PUD. Also, the City is getting very long and narrow cul-de.sacs and added tax base. Hoisington noted that PUD's are not employed for the purpose of generating a tax base but are created for better places for people to live, to be more responsive to the environment, and to provide open spaces. Hoisington said that it is their opinion that this PUD does not represent good land use,does not adequately protect the natural resources or provide open spaces; and crams development on the peninsula that would not otherwise be developable without the PUD. He said, in conclusion, this PUD is an effort .to put development first and the site second and puts development where none is intended, produces no usable open space, exceeds DNR standards for hard cover, produces nothing but tax base in return for granting . variances. , . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-one Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, referred to the staff report, written to the City Council, for its meeting of February 4, 1997, and to the Planning Director who said that it has been determined that there is no need for more environmental studies on this site. Maynard told the commission what was decided was that there was no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because of the magnitude of the project and the overall environmental consequences of the site, did not justify an EIS. He said that at this meeting the Mayor assured "us" that environmental concerns would be considered throlJghout the PUD process. Maynard said that it is the City's duty to monitor and look into, and if necessary, enforce, He noted Grimes' memo on variances citing that the City will see to it that this site is designed to preserve the health, safety and morals of this project; Maynard said that this is the general phrase used in all zoning. Commission Kapsner told Mr. Maynard that he was confused. He wanted to know if Mr. Maynard was saying that the PUD process is the best way of handling this unique parcel of land although most of the speakers are saying not to use the PUD process. Maynard responded that that the City, Planning Commission, and City Council are to protect the environment to the maximum extent. He said that the environmental inquiries have not come to an end just because there is no need for an EIS. Maynard commented on Commissioner's Lewis question of how wide the peninsula was and he said he has been asking that same question. He said that he would like to see a better survey of the site, commenting on the topography and wanting to see one (1) foot contours, instead of the two (2) feet as on the survey. Maynard said he talked with Mark Hurd who said thatthey only do two (2) foot contours and Maynard said that RLK drew the one (1) foot conto.urs on the survey. Maynard noted that this point is important because if the peninsula was 8' little bit bigger, there is an existing bluff that would need to be protected. He also talked about when the survey was taken and how the area has changed since that time. Mr. Maynard next addressed open space and talked about whether the City's definition is the same as the DNR's definition noting that the City's Shoreline ordinance does not have a definition for open space, and that the City's ordinance was adopted before the DNR imposed the regulation on percentage of open space. The DNR's definition is that anything that is not covered is open space, and the City's ordinance does not have this definition. He told the commission it was up to them to decide if there is enough worthwhile open space. Mr. Maynard then addressed variances reviewing a plan outlining the 454 variances in 20 different categories of variances. He asked why this was important! The Code says in the PUD section that substantial variances will be allowed; this doesn't mean to throw out the rule book. It means the nature of a PUD process is a negotiation, in that the City will grant variances for something in return. Maynard said that variances have to be justified and asked the commission to think about this. Mr. Maynard questioned when the list of variances were turned into the City because it was not attached to the copy of the application he received. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-two . Mr. Maynard next talked about variances on the shoreline. Maynard disputed the developers claim that he doesn't need variances on the peninsula. Maynard is saying that the road is within 50 feet of the shore which includes five (5) lots and an outlot. Henoted that the DNR said that this project appears to comply with state wide shoreline management regulations as administered by the City of Golden Valley. Maynard questioned this because the City's code says a road cannot go closer than 50 feet to the shore. He talked about a letter that he wrote to Tom Hovey and questioned the distance to the shore. Mr. Hovey wrote back and said the nature of a PUD is to grant variances. Maynard said this is a negotiation, variances from the City for something in exchange for something. Maynard noted that Mr. Hovey has not said that the road satisfies the 50 feet, and its plain that it doesn't. Maynard asked if custom single-family homes is an appropriate type of project for the City's PUD ordinance! He told the commission that he has reviewed the ordinance, comprehensive plan and the City's PUD's and noted the types of adjoining uses. He said this PUD is very large compared to others. He read from the PUD ordinance and why the City has PUD ordinances, noting a section on tracts with poor soil... or need for transition. This is what PUD's have been used for in Golden Valley. Chair Prazak asked if it was necessary to review the wording in the Comprehensive Plan. Maynard said it was and read from the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the City's ordinance is about buildings and not just simply subdivision of land. . Chair Prazak commented that the commission is familiar with the language of the PUD from reviewing it over the years and requested that other people be given a chance to t~lk. Mr. Maynard said that he would stick around to finish his comments. Leo Miller, 2150 Indiana Ave. No., commented that there have changes to the water, due to past damming and dumping around Sweeney and Twin Lakes, which could have changed the OHWL. He said it would be impossible to carry a canoe over the bridge. Mr. Miller commented on other development in the area and the problem with traffic on Golden Valley Road and not being able to safely make the turn onto this road. He believes the traffic on Golden Valley Road will become worse with the development of Hidden Lakes. Bob Morrison, 1840 Spring Valley Circle, commented on a couple of a concerns. One is a sense of exclusive attitude for high-end development. He heard this was a private land development .and commented that he was a private land owner and also has to work with and meet all the requirements of the City. He talked about the proposed plan going before the Met Council and how they will see how it fits into the regional plan for development in the Twin Cities. Morrison is concerned with building a city within a city and people who buy on the high-end don't want a lot of people around. He noted that he was a member of Human Rights Commission. Morrison also commented on his concern of exclusivity for . housing and that Mark Grimes commented at a meeting a couple of years ago that the City was developed. He wanted to know if there were other housing options discussed for this site. He talked about the cities having an over abundance of housing at the high income . . . " Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-three levels, He wondered if there was an adequate market for 176 high value homes in this location. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Morrison if he was representing the Human Rights Commission and he said no, he was acting as a resident of Golden Valley. Jim Simpson, 1850 Major Drive, talked about using the lake in the summer and winter and that the quality of the lake has dropped. He showed the commission a picture of the peninsula with a row of houses transposed on it. He said that he has been on the peninsula and that there is no way that houses can be placed on it. Simpson said that he was worried about the development from an environmental standpoint. Don Paquette, 2000 Aquila Avenue North, commented on enjoying the use of the lake and said that the peninsula should not be developed and would be a real tragedy. He talked about being on the property and watching the sunset and that there is no other property like this in the Twin City area and one needs to go up north to find this kind of nature. He said that the peninsula cannot be developed without cutting down a lot of the trees. He commented on the private road length, on the peninsula, and its closeness to the water, and the environmental issues. Mr. Paquette commented on Mr. Shardlow's presentation and noted the last portion concerning the amount of taxes this development will generate and what we really have here is the environment vs. taxes. Paquette commented on Mr. Shardlow's presentation concerning that this was a regulatory taking and Mr. Paquette believes that if the City doesn't give the developer what he wants, he'll sue. Mr. Paquette said that he talked with Mr. Grimes and during that conversation Mr, Grimes said that the City wants to do what is best for the community. He commented on a report received from Tom Balcom, from the DNR, dated February 28, 1996, regarding site development of the peninsula and it should not be allowed from a natural resource perspective. Paquette said that he talked with Mr. Hovey about a meeting that occurred on March 6, 1996 and asked why they changed their minds about development of the peninsula. Mr. Paquette asked Mssrs. Hovey and Balcom anything they stated in their first letter (development with 700+ units) was true. They responded that their goal is to protect the peninsula and that the letter was full of opinions about how best to preserve and protect the peninsula.. Paquette asked if those opinions still stand and they. answered yes. Paquette said the DNR also recommended avoiding the springs, talked about washout, temporary damage to the lake, etc. But Hovey stated that one cannot rely on opinions .and that they would like to see all development off the peninsula. Mr. Paquette commented on Mr. Fellman's belief that the DNR does not have standards to prohibit setbacks and Paquette submits that the DNR does have standards. Paquette talked about the design of the road to take into consideration vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening of the view from public waters. He said Hovey and Balcom based DNR approval with the understanding that the roadway would be 50 feet from the OHWL. It was Mr. Paquette's opinion that the DNR leaned in favor of the City of Golden Valley and the developer. Paquette asked the question if the DNR had been pressured; he said that the DNR had no answer. The DNR submitted that the City of Golden Valley was neutral. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-four . Paquette noted that as something as important as the development of the peninsula should not be neutral. Paquette said that Grimes, in his memo, does not make a recommendation, but it is his jOb to make a recommendation of whether the peninsula should be developed. Paquette does not believe that the peninsula can be developed effectively without damaging the lake and questioned the number of trees that would have to be removed, and there would no longer be that pristine look. It is an obligation of the City to review whether the springs will be damaged with this development. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Paquette that if he did not attend the March 6 meeting, between the DNR, City and the developer, how did he get his information. Mr. Paquette said through the people who were there. Laurel Newtson, 1250 Angelo Drive, said that she was in favor of the development of Hidden Lakes but the developer needs to abide by the existing codes, EPA requirements, regarding water quality, wetland,density issues, traffic, forest preservation and management. . Dave Phillips, Director of the Courage Center, assumed property would develop and the lower the density the better because of their busy property. He said that he has been working with developer in terms of access improvement and parking. Phillips commented that he sees no adverse effect on the Courage Center because of the development. Pat Convoy, 1100 Angelo Drive, commented that the peninsula is the issue with her. She doesn't understand how a road and homes can be placed on this land. She talked about the ridge and small flat area. She feels there is the potential of destroying the peninsula with developing it. Convoy questioned if there was anyway to separate the peninsula from the rest of the project. Chair Prazak commented that the commission has flexibility on the recommendations made to the City Council. Eric Fournier, 2205 Mary Hills Drive, is opposed to the development on the peninsula and has real concerns about traffic. Fournier talked about the speed and traffic on Golden Valley Road. He is also concerned about the condition of the bridge on. Golden Valley Road, east of the site. He questioned the development on the peninsula and the total change that would occur. Fournier said that he would like the developer to be successful but hopes that can happen without the development of the peninsula. Vice-Chair Pentel asked staff if the bridge on Golden Valley Road would be reconstructed and Grimes said yes. Jean Rudelius, 1805 Major Drive, commented that after reviewing the proposals for the . peninsula, has great concerns regarding the viability for the project, commenting on the grading of the peninsula and having to bring in dirt because of the sensitivity of the area. e. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-five She is concerned about the road, and water and storm runoff and emergency vehicle access. Rudelius agrees that low-density residential is clearly the way to go on this site. She is concerned with the environmental issues and would like an accounting of this. Barney Rosen, 4820 Kilarney Drive, has been living on the lake for 30 years but enjoying for 60 years which includes the peninsula, Sweeney and Twin Lakes. He is against the development of the peninsula and the bluffs on the east side of Twin Lake. Rosen talked about the past erosion on the lake which is made up of fine sand. Linda Loomis, Chair Person for the Open Space and Recreation Commission reminded the commission that they had received a letter from Park and Rec Director Rick Jacobson. She was appearing before them to let them know that the Commission is recommending the full amount of park dedication required by City ordinance. She commented that the plan submitted to the Open Space and Rec Commission, in 1885 or 1996, did not have public open space and neither does the revised plan. She said that in any case, the commission is recommending an open space dedication. Chair Prazak commended the citizens of Golden Valley for their resourcefulness and persistence in digging out some of these issues. Commissioner McAleese said that he was also impressed with the number of people who had tramped over the site, given the prominence of the big yellow criminal no trespass signs. Hugh Maynard, 1840 Spring Valley Road, commented on the planned homes for the development and its compatibility. The City's ordinance is designed to review all parts of the home building and its plans when all the plans are the same. He says it doesn't make any sense when there will be 41 different custom single family homes. Is it believable that they will all architecturally be the same. He asked if the City wants to be in the business of reviewing 41 different home plans! Maynard commented on the design and locations of the building, architectural style and other plans at General Plan review. We have no assurance what these homes will look like. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing and asked for a motion to have the informal public hearing reconvened to the next regular meeting. Commissioner Pentel asked the Chair for clarification on hearing public testimony. Chair Prazak commented that no further public testimony would be heard at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Lewis asked about the 60 day deadline. Director Grimes commented that the City can automatically extend the 60 day deadline and if need be work with the developer for another extension. .. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-six MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and moved unanimously to reconvene the informal public hearing of the Hidden Lakes Development to the next regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission. Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 12:45am. Jean Lewis, Secretary . . . ~, '. ~fI;f;; . . . I"JI", .;'ll Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7.800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, and Pentel absent was Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval Qf Minutes -February 24. 19~7 MOVED by Johnson, seconded by McAleese to table the February 24, 1997 minutes to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. II. (Continued - Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan __ Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP Address: 4101-4147 Golden Valley Road (Portion of Golden Valley Health Center Site) Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan which would allow for the construction of 176 residences in detached and attached construction styles on a portion of the P.U.D. Vice Chair PenteUntroduced the agenda item and explained where the Planning Commission is in the process. She stated that the Commission understood the public's frustration over how late the previous meeting had run, but that the public hearing portion of the process had been concluded at that time and the Commissioners had held it open until there were no more people waiting to be heard. She encouraged those who still had statements to make to send letters to the City Council or to attend the upcoming public hearing at the Council level. She explained that, while the informal public hearing was closed, the Commissioners would be asking questions of staff, the applicant, and perhaps others who had spoken during the hearing. She noted that she had prepared a list of the issue areas that had surfaced with regard to the proposal, and she would use that list to guide the discussion of the Commissioners. She suggested going through the list once to ask questions, then again for decision-making purposes. The first issue ,area was whether the proposal is acceptable under Golden Valley's PUD regulations. Commissioner McAleese noted that he had some comments to make on that issue, but would reserve them for a later point in the meeting; he had no questions. None of the other Commissioners had questions on that issue. , 1 t \J . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,1997 . Page Two . The second issue area was Livable Communities. Commissioner Lewis asked if the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority had investigated any financing mechanisms for getting affordable housing included in the Hidden Lakes development. Director of Planning and Development Grimes indicated that the HRA had not looked into the matter. It might come up again when the proposal goes before the City Council. That body has made a commitment to the Livable Communities principles, which include making efforts toward affordable housing. However, Director Grimes questioned whether the Hidden Lakes site would be an appropriate area for those efforts, given the costs involved. Commissioner McAleese asked Director Grimes to back up and provide an overview of what Livable Communities means. Director Grimes did so. The Hidden Lakes development will help to broaden the supply of life cycle housing, or housing alternatives to traditional single family homes. It will not help with providing more affordable housing. The third issue area was peninsula development. Vice Chair Pentel asked about the fifty-foot setback. Director Grimes indicated that the developer has redesigned the original peninsula layout so that the fifty-foot setback for hard surfacing can be met at every single point along the peninsula's length except for where the existing driveway crosses the bridge and comes up onto the peninsula. Commissioner Kapsner asked about the adequacy of the survey done by . the developer. Director Grimes responded that the survey had been signed by a registered land surveyor and is considered acceptable. As the proposal proceeds into the General Plan stage, the developer will be required to go out and stake such features as the setbacks and conservation easements, so that everyone can see how various requirements are being met. Commissioner Groger asked for information on the conservation easements. Director Grimes explained that there is no standard. provision for such easements, but one of the requirements of approving the PUD amendment is that the developer will provide a forty-foot conservation easement all along both sides of the peninsula. Assistant City Engineer Oliver came forward to explain further. Conservation easements, as a general rule, do prohibit any disturbance of the areas they cover. In this particular case, the extent of prohibition is still subject to negotiation. It is expected that some provision will be made for homeowners to maintain lake access. Staff are currently considering a maximum area of disturbance of 500 square feet per lot for any dock or other disturbances of the natural vegetation, but that is only a working position at this time. This issue will be settled during final plan approval. Commissioner Kapsner asked what agencies or City departments will be involved in overseeing the project as it goes forward. Mr. Oliver replied that, if the project proceeds as expected with no wetland impacts, the Department of Natural Resources will be involved during the PUD review and approval process. After that, a permit will be required for any work on the bridge out to the peninsula, as well as any other work that occurs below the established ordinary high . water level. Primary responsibilities during actual development will fall to the City staff in Engineering, Public Works, Inspections, and Planning Departments, and the City Forester. . . . J' , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Three Vice Chair Pentel asked about the utility lines that would be suspended from the bridge: is this . common, how will it work, and will there be a need for a lift station. Mr. Oliver explained that this is fairly common, and makes for easier maintenance than if the utilities lines are bored under the water. There will be lift stations for the sanitary and storm sewer lines. The City will maintain those lift stations. Commissioner McAleese noted that a large number of calculations will be needed to ensure that adequate storm water ponding is provided. He asked if the DNR would have any role in evaluating those calculations. Mr. Oliver said that the DNR typically does not get involved in such work. The Bassett Creek Water Management Organization will perform a technical review, however. Storm water from the peninsula will be routed into the pond directly north of the bridge access road. There is no plan at this time for channeling the water through more than one pond before letting it flow into the creek or lake, but that is something that certainly could be looked at. Typically, the longer storm water can be held, the cleaner it is at the time of release. When it finally ends up in the lake, it must meet water quality standards established by the Management Organization. Commissioner McAleese said he was sure the water quality would meet standards in year one, but he wanted to know who would be responsible for ensuring that the standards continue to be met into the far future. According to Mr. Oliver, oversight would be undertaken by the City and the Watershed Commission, of which the City is a member. Ongoing pond maintenance will be the responsibility of the City, which already has an aggressive pond maintenance program in place citywide. Access for City maintenance will be provided through drainage and utility easements. Staff have been exploring the possibility of creating a special service district for the Hidden Lakes PUD, because there may be some extraordinary maintenance costs involved. Commissioner McAleese said he understood that many of the final details will not be resolved until a later date, but he felt it was good to know where things stand now because many people are concerned about these matters. He also asked whether there would be a backup power supply for the lift stations. According to Mr. Oliver, that would not be a typical lift station feature, and there are other means to provide emergency power if necessary. Alarms are in place to notify the City of power failures in such systems. Mr. Oliver returned to his seat. Vice Chair Pentel asked Director Grimes if the springs on the peninsula have been mapped yet. Director Grimes responded that the mapping has been completed by the developer and the springs are noted on the revised peninsula design layout. Vice Chair Pentel asked how much grading would be necessary on the peninsula, and how much wetland filling would occur. Developer Grimes reported that the developer has done away with any proposal for filling wetland areas, and the peninsula design layout gives some indication of grading. Commissioner Groger asked whether tl1ere would be any fencing between the last house on the peninsula and the park land beyond. There is a partial fence on the property line now, and , 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Four . such fences are allowed in Golden Valley. Director Grimes suggested that a representative for the developer step forward, present the revised peninsula layout, and answer questions. John Shardlow and Bill Huser, consultants for the developer, presented a large-scale rendering of the revised peninsula layout. It does indicate locations of all seeps and springs, it shows the access road meeting the fifty-foot setback line, and it includes cross sections of typical homes on two of the ten lots. On all ten lots, scaled footprints of actual homes built elsewhere by the selected peninsula builders have been drawn in, to show that very large h.omes, in the range of 7,000 square feet, could be accommodated within the building envelope. The existing peninsula house is smaller than the illustrative footprint at the same approximate location. A retaining wall is now proposed adjacent to the road as it passes by the wetland area, to eliminate the need for any filling. Vice Chair Pentelasked how wide the peninsula road would be. Mr. Huser replied that it would be twenty feet wide along most of the peninsula and would narrow down to fourteen feet at the southerly end. Vice Chair Pentel asked whether the storm water drainage system is also intended to capture the water coming off of the house roofs. Mr. Huser replied that it is. There will be curbing on . the road help capture storm water, and there is a gradient from south to north to promote flow. Gravity feed might be adequate to get the storm water over to the designated pond, ora lift station could be used, ora siphon-type feed; all of these options are being discussed with the Engineering Department. Mr. Huser went over the details of the two cross section views, one of which was drawn on lot 9, where the setback constraints will be greatest. Vice Chair Pentel asked staff whether any setback variances were likely to occur on any of the ten lots. Director Grimes felt there. would not be. Mr. Shardlow stated that the developer would commit to no variances for the peninsula homes. Vice Chair Pentel asked about the PUD provision stating that no principle building can be nearer than its own height to an adjacent property. City Planner Knoblauch replied that staff interpret that provision to apply only at the edges of the PUD and it would not affect lots within the PUD. Vice Chair Pentel asked whether there would normally be a height limit of twenty-five feet for the peninsula homes. Staff replied that City Code provides for three stories; the DNR may have a twenty-five foot height limit in shoreland areas. Mr. Shardlow and Mr. Huser left the podium. The fourth issue area on Vice Chair Pentel's list was bluff development. She reminded the Commission that the stability of the bluff areas was called into question at the informal public hearing. She asked whether there was any certainty as to the stability of the bluffs, and also asked whether the proposed road would need to be relocated due to bluff impacts or whether the disruption had already. taken place. when the existing home was built. Director Grimes replied that the DNR has declared the bluff where the road crosses over to the peninsula to be . an already altered bluff, and therefore not subject to the same level of protection as undisturbed bluffs elsewhere on the site. Moving the road to the south as the developer , '. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Five proposes meets the DNR's standards for that particular location. The developer's plan meets DNR protection requirements for the other bluff areas. . The fifth issue area was the on-site landfill. Vice Chair Pentel noted that there had been reports of medical waste in the filled area, and questions had been raised at the informal public hearing as to the adequacy of the soil borings. Director Grimes indicated a letter submitted to the Commissioners by John Shardlow, addressing these concerns. Mr. Shardlow had also submitted to staff information on the borings themselves. Depth of borings varies between twenty and sixty feet, and no evidence of medical waste or garbage turned up. Commissioner McAleese recalled that at the previous meeting the developer had mentioned that the EAW was not technically required by law for this proposal, but it was done anyway. The proposal has now reached a stage where the environmental issues can be managed by staff, according to the developer's packet. Commissioner McAleese wanted to know what happens in a situation like this, where additional questions come up. Which staff member is responsible for monitoring environmental factors. Director Grimes stated that environmental issues would primarily fall to the Engineering and Inspection Departments. For example, the utility construction will involve daily on-site inspections. If staff see any signs of pollution at any excavated areas, work will have to stop until additional analysis can be done. This has happened on other sites around the City, particularly HRA redevelopment parcels. Staff are concerned about ensuring the long term viability of the utility systems, and soil conditions will be evaluated carefully at locations for utilities and for the private roads. Vice Chair Pentel asked Director Grimes if he felt the landfill issue has been resolved. He replied that staff have seen the Phase I environmental audit, and no particular issues were called out. At this time, staff feel any further questions are a private matter between the developer and participating financing agencies. At the suggestion_of staff, Vice Chair Pentel had John Shardlow come forward and summarize the contents of his letter for the benefit of those in the audience. Mr. Shardlow addressed public concerns about a Phase II environmental report having been done and not being available to the public. There is noPhase II report at this time. The Phase I document sets out known conditions on the site and recommends additional studies to be done, construction practices to be followed, and steps to be taken if pollution is found. He described the numerous borings that have been done and the five separate geotechnical reports involved. In response to reports of medical dumping, a former hospital official has been contacted and has stated that, years ago, debris was hauled to the south end of the site and regularly burned. That area has been rained on for many years, and in Mr. Shardlow's opinion, anything that could leach out of the burned materials has already done so. If there is any pollution beneath the forty feet of twenty-year-old demolition debris, Mr. Shardlow believes that the best solution would be to cap it with as much impervious surface as possible. . Vice Chair Pentel asked if there is a map of the borings anywhere in the Commission's packet. Mr. Shardlow said there is a map in the materials given to staff. Copies of the documents were . , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Six . not given to all Commissioners because it is not relevant to the zoning -matter at hand. Mr. Shard low sat down. Commissioner Kapsner said he thought it was important to state that no favoritism was being shown to the developer, nor was the informal public hearing being reopened; the Commission is simply answering questions, and it is important for the public to understand that. Vice Chair Pentel further clarified that the Commission has the right to ask questions of anyone who gave testimony at the last meeting. Commissioner McAleese noted ttlat the Commission has even gone beyond the appropriate level of review for this stage. That has been done because the City Council is going to ask many of those questions anyway, and likes to have the Planning Commission raise them first. Also, part of what the Commission does is helping the public understand what is happening. The sixth issue area on the list was park dedication. For the record, Director Grimes read a recommendation from the Open Space and Recreation Commi~sion, dated March 3, 1997, in its entirety. Linda Loomis, Ch~irof the Open Space Commission, stepped up to answer questions. Vice Chair Pentel asked if the Open Space Commission had thoughtabout where public access . might best be located. Ms. Loomis ~eplied that the Commission left that up to developer as the one with the design experience at his disposal. Commissioner Johnson asked if it is important to have both developed park land and open space. Ms. Loomis said the Open Space - Commission asked for a picnic site and -playground area, maybe a fishing pier, and some parking. The Open Space Commission feels the lake is not sui~~ble for motorized vehicles, but someone with a car-top watercraft should be able to put it in the lake. - Commissioner Kapsner asked abo~t the amount of parking to be provided. Ms: LoomisJelt that six to ten spaces would be adequate. Commissioner Groger asked if the Open Space Commission had considered that people might use those parking spaces for other reasons. Ms. Loomis said there had been no discussion about reasons for use, but the Commission had talked about posting "no parking" signs on the streets to help control lake access and prevent overuse. Commissioner Kapsner noted that the City already has access to Sweeney Lake, and he wondered if there had been any discussion about developing that access. Ms. Loomis acknowledged that the City owns a lake shore lot at the south end of Sweeney Lake. - She has never been there herself, but has heard that it is steep but passable, and people do put their canoes in. It is just a vacant lot with trees on it. It is on a dead-end, and is-hard to find. It has never been considered for official lake access. Commissioner Kapsner felt that conditions on the Hidden Lakes site would be similar to the City's lot. Director Grimes stated that the City's lot at the south end of Sweeney Lake was acquired for storm sewer purposes, not for lake access. An adjacent property owner wants to buy it. There is also a fifteen-foot-wide public access easement off of Angelo Drive. Vice Chair Pentel said that access is very steep; one could stand at the top and fling a canoe to the bottom, but it . . . . " , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Seven would arrive in pieces. She feels the City-owned lot is also heavily gullied and would not provide easy access. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the terrain is any different on the Hidden Lakes side of the lake. Vice Chair Pentel said the north end of the lake on the Hidden Lakes property is flat. Commissioner Kapsner noted that putting the park there raises the potential problem of overflow parking on adjacent lots. Commissioner McAleese asked if the parking at the City-owned lot was on the cul-de-sac. Director Grimes said the location of the lot is not well known. There are no "no parking" signs on the street. Ms. Loomis said adjacent landowners have estimated about 100 people use the lot for lake access during the summer. Commissioner McAleese asked how much land the Open Space Commission wanted the developer to dedicate. Ms. Loomis said the Commission has asked for the maximum amount allowed. Director Grimes said that would be up to ten percent of the total acreage. Commissioner McAleese noted that the developer's materials refer to the ten percent as 6.8 acres, but that only takes into account the specific Hidden Lakes land, not the PUD as a whole. City Planner Knoblauch stated that the terms of the existing permit provide for park dedication as specific lots are developed, so it is not incorrect for the developer to base his numbers on the smaller acreage. Commissioner McAleese asked whether PUD 45 remains in existence if this proposal is approved. Staff said that the proposal is an amendmentto existing PUD 45. As part of the amendment, and purely for administrative purposes, staff are recommending a new name and number for the entire PUD. If this causes problems for the Planning Commission or City Council, the current number and name can be retained. The seventh issue area on Vice Chair Pentel's list was the public access trail running through the development and into adjacent Wirth Park. Vice Chair Pentel asked whether the trail would be on a sidewalk and would be open 24 hours a day. Director Grimes s~id the details have not been worked out yet. Staff's intent is that the trail will have signs posted at Golden Valley Road, identifying it as a public trail, and that it will be more than just a sidewalk, so it will be suitable for biking as well. He has calculated that a trail of ten to fifteen feet in width running through the site would come to roughly 30,000 square feet of linear open space available to the public. Vice Chair Pentel asked if dedicated park land within the site couldn't also be signed at Golden Valley Road, making it easier to find. Director Grimes said it could. Vice Chair Pentel asked about pUblic use of other private roads in the development. Given that the developer has talked about a canoe portage across the peninsula bridge and pUblic fishing from the bridge, will the public have to arrive at that point by canoe, or can they walk in from the road. Bill Huser stepped up to address that question. He reviewed the trail system on the basic site plan. There will be a trail link between the main trail and the bridge. Once the private road Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Eight . actually reaches the peninsula, no public access is intended. Access as far as the bridge is intended to be pedestrian rather than vehicular. On the peninsula side of the bridge there will be a hammer-head turnaround surfaced in something like turf block for cars that do get that far. The main trail will be separate from the road, but will cross from the west to east side at one point. The road will be lighted, and the trail will be on the same side as the lights so they can serve both road and trail. The eighth issue area was variances. Commissioner Lewis noted that staff usually list the variances involved in a PUD, and this time there is no list. Commissioner McAleese clarified that the issue seemed to be whether the application was deficient for not coming in with a list of variances attached. He had reviewed the file and found there was a list. It was not exceedingly detailed, but met the application requirement. The requirement is not in code; it is a staff requirement for administrative use. The important thing is that the City has the plat and site plans, which are what staff really use. The application package is complete. Commissioner Groger asked what variances would still be necessary with the revised peninsula plan. City Planner Knoblauch pointed out that the developer had committed to no variances for the homes on the peninsula lots. Director Grimes said that there obviously would be no way to put a sixty-foot-wide public road on the peninsula and have the homes set back 35 feet from it. . Staff could think of no other variances on the peninsula, except for the location of the existing road segment. Commissioner Kapsner stated that there is no way to get onto the peninsula without getting close to the water at some point. The peninsula seems to be the source of most of the variance problems, and the public's concern seems to be that the proposed streets are not wide enough. Vice Chair Pentel noted that setbacks from the private streets seem. to be a concern throughout the developmenL Director Grimes stated that the 35-foot setback requirement does not apply to private streets. Vice Chair Pentel noted that there is still a fifteen-foot setback specified in the PUD regulations. Director Grimes said the fifteen-foot setback is met in this development. The ninth issue area was the engineering concerns outlined in the staff report of February 13, 1997, known as the Oliver memo. Commissioner Groger said he was troubled by the inadequate turn-arounds on dead-end streets. Assistant City Engineer Oliver returned to the podium to report that staff have been meeting with the developer on this issue. The primary concern is emergency vehicle access. Staff are confident that the matter can be resolved as part of the final process. There have also been discussions about realignment of some intersections and connectivity of the road system. Again, public safety access is the City's main concern, and staff are confident that any problems can be resolved. Vice Chair Pentel asked aboutthe tree inventory and preservation plan. The developer's plan shows street plantings, but not much else. Given the amount of grading to be done, Vice Chair Pentel wondered if it would be possible to save existing trees in areas other than the steep slopes and conservation areas. Mr. Oliver explained that custom grading, which will be used at the site, is able to work around trees. Most of the trees identified for preservation are in areas . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Nine that will not be subject to grading at all. He is confident that custom grading can successfully preserve other trees on a case by case basis, with oversight by the City Forester as individual site grading plans are reviewed. Commissioner McAleese asked whether the developer had submitted a list of the many restrictive covenants that will be required as part of the development. Mr. Oliver said he had seen no such list. Most of the issues raised in the Oliver memo would not be addressed through restrictive covenants. Commissioner McAleese stated that normally the restrictive covenants would be part of the preliminary plat process. He asked if the developer had begun working on the covenants. John Shardlow stated for the record that all of the issues raised in the Oliver memo would be addressed, whether through restrictive covenants or other means; there are no written covenants ready at this time. Commissioner McAleese noted that the PUD preliminary plan stage is supposed to include all materials normally submitted with a preliminary plat; to him, it seems clear that copies of the restrictive covenants are needed in order to evaluate what is being proposed. He expected that something could be worked out before the City Council hearing. He would not expect them to be too detailed at this point, but there are so many things to be covered that they need to be addressed at some level now. . Commissioner Groger had a question that was not part of the Oliver memo, but was on a related subject. The preliminary site plan includes a notation that overhead utilities on the south and west property lines will be buried. He thought the overhead utilities were on the south and east, not the west. Staff confirmed that it should be east. The tenth. and final issue area was conservation easements. Commissioners had no questions that had not already been addressed in earlier discussion. Vice Chair Pentel asked if there were any other questions that Commissioners wanted to ask before proceeding to discussion on a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner McAleese asked for a brief explanation from John Shardlow on information he submitted with regard to impervious surfacing calculations. Mr. Shardlow said that the developer's calculation of the amount of impervious surfacing in the shoreland area had been called into question at the informal public hearing. He wanted the Commission to know that the calculations had been revisited, and they are correct as presented. The Hidden Lakes calculations assume that the entire building envelope on each lot will become impervious surface, no matter how large an area that is. The shoreland area impervious surfacing will meet DNR guidelines. The only way he can see for any other conclusion to have been reached is if portions of the site outside of the shoreland area are included in the calculations. Commissioner McAleese asked what happens to the calculations if already-developed portions of the shoreland area are included along with the Hidden Lakes development areas. Mr. Shardlow said his understanding is that number would still fall within the DNR guidelines. . The Commission moved on to discussion of the issues and formulation of a recommendation to the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Ten . The first issue area was whether the proposal is acceptable under Golden Valley's PUD regulations. Commissioner McAleese noted that this issue had been raised by Mr. Maynard in materials submitted to the City as testimony, and had been addressed by Director Grimes in the staff memo. Staff have stated that the proposal is acceptable, but in Golden Valley City Code it . is the City Council that makes a final determination in cases like this where an administrative interpretation of the PUD regulations is challenged. It is the role of the Planning Commission to assemble facts and make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner McAleese said that the completeness of the application had been satisfactorily addressed, but that therewas still some question as to whether the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning code. In response to that question, Commissioner McAleese suggested thatthe Commission adopt the written opinion of the City Attorney stating that it does. After reading City Code, Commissioner McAleese feels that reasonable people can disagree on this point. However, looking back at the preamble to the PUD regulations and at the City's comprehensive plan, it clearly has been a long-time intention of the City to apply the PUD provisions to residential developments. Commissioner McAleese recommended that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council the opinion of the City Attorney, along with a recommendation that this development does qualify as a PUD. Commissioner McAleese also noted that one of the things the DNR always likes local governments to consider with PUD applications is whether the PUD is appropriate at the particular location, so it is important to address the question for that reason as well. . Commissioner Kapsner stated that there had been quite a lot of testimony from the public that they feel this should not bea PUD, but in his view, if this were not a PUD he would suggest that it be made one because of the environmental concerns. The City has better long-term controls over the site when it is a PUD. There are management tools available through the PUD process that the City wouldn't have if this were a standard development. It is important for the public to understand, whether they agree with the final decision or not, that the PUD really puts the City in a stronger position. The second issue area was Livable Communities. Vice Chair Pentel said that it had become clear that while this proposal may be improving the City's supply of life cycle housing, it does nothing for affordability. Commissioner Kapsner said that he feels the Planning Commission should support affordable housing, but it is impossible to consider affordable units as part of this development. Limited access to the site requires low density housing, which is not in keeping with Livable Community goals. Vice Chair Pentel pointed out that the earlier proposal for the site had included higher density in part through senior housing, which might not have much of an impact on traffic concerns. Director Grimes said that the EAW showed a traffic generation of 6,000 to 7,000 cars per day for the earlier proposal and only 1,500 cars per day with the current proposal. Commissioner Lewis felt that the developer was coming to the City asking for a lot of variances, and there should be trade-offs for that. She stated that she could not support the proposal . ,,"t . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Eleven without the inclusion of affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson questioned whether the City could realistically consider affordable housing in this area; she felt that Valley Square's Area B would be a more appropriate location, and was one where affordable housing has been discussed. Commissioner McAleese said that in reading through a number of housing reports from several groups, he had never seen a reported deficiency of housing for the wealthy in Golden Valley, but there is a need for affordable housing. At the Livable Communities amount of $115,000, the developer should be able to accommodate a few units. If the City is serious about Livable Communities, Commissioner McAleese feels it is time to take a stand. Commissioner Lewis agreed, stating that this is an exclusive, sterile community and there is a need to bring in some diversity; she also thought that the Livable Communities affordability price had gone up, and that funding does exist to help bridge the remaining gap. Commissioner Kapsner said the City could very likely get the developer to provide some affordable units, but only for the first sale; Realtors say "location, location, location", and the market factors at this location will quickly drive prices right back up if the City tries to lower them artificially.. . The third issue area was peninsula development. Commissioner Johnson asked Assistant City Engineer Oliver to comment on the narrowness of the peninsula road in the revised layout. Mr. Oliver said he had not had much time to review the new layout, and he wasn't prepared to discuss whether it raises any concerns with regard to public safety access. The fact that all homes on the peninsula will have sprinkler systems does lessen any concern about fire access, but he will need time to evaluate the narrower road before making any comment. Commissioner Groger stated that he had not been present at the previous meeting, but had reviewed the hours of tape as well as all written materials so that he could participate in this discussion. He had found the peninsula development to be the most troubling aspect of the proposal. He has walked the peninsula, and even taken along a tape measure. The ideal situation would be no development on the peninsula, but in the ideal world he would rather that the entire lake not be developed so the City could put a trail around it and a rose garden and have its own Lake Harriet. The one point he kept coming back to in reviewing the testimony was that much of the discussion was about the peninsula, but the fact remains that this is private property. If it was his land, he would expect to be considered reasonably by the City. The development on the peninsula is tight, but it does work. He is reluctantly satisfied on that point. Homes on the west side of the lake are closer to the lake than 75 feet, and have mowed lawns down to the shore, which is more damaging than what is proposed for the peninsula. The road is narrow, but it is a private road; there are private roads in other PUD's, and there are shared driveways and homes sitting behind other homes with only a narrow access. The one thing he would insist on is some form of turnaround for emergency vehicles at the end of the road. He likes the fact that there will be public access as far as the bridge; it is unfortunate that what some may have perceived as a right to use the land on the peninsula will be gone, but legally, people do not have the right to use it now -- it is private property. The PUD will provide legal public access that does not exist now. . Vice Chair Pentel said that she sees the developer as meeting the required.fifty...foot setback by making the road narrower and narrower, and that bothers her. She agrees that it is private Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twelve . property. The developer is asking for things from the City, and she wonders what the City is getting back. There is very little passive public land proposed within the development; there will be children living there or visiting, and there is no place for them to play. She feels that the fifty- foot setback would not be allowed under standard zoning, and does not like using the PUD to allow a greater environmental impact. The idea of fitting homes onto the peninsula by putting the road fifty feet from the shore and narrowing it down to fourteen feet, which is less thana normal double..:driveway, is not acceptable. Commissioner Johnson said she is also concerned about the width of the road. She feels the developer is giving up road width in order to have bigger houses. With fewer houses on the peninsula, the road could be worked around to make it wider for improved emergency access, and there would be turn-around space. She would also like to see part of the peninsula included in a park dedication, so the public could have access to both Sweeney and Twin Lakes. Commissioner Lewis agreed that she could not support the preliminaryplan as submitted. The peninsula is over..:developed. Her concerns were similar to those already noted. Commissioner McAleese said he has never used Twin Lake. One thing is clear to him: unlike Sweeney Lake, Twin Lake is a wilderness lake, and he would hate to see this change. He . understands this is private property, and sometimes private property gets developed. He feels that it is an especially environmentally sensitive area, and even though this is a PUD, it should be held to the strictest standards. Code says that the road should be 75 feet back where feasible and practical; there are certainly areas where it is feasible and practical to meet this requirement, but then it cuts into the number of developable lots. The City should apply nonnal variance requirements, including an explanation of hardship for all variances on the peninsula. He would like the City to use the same concept as the DNR, which applies a tier system when considering PUD proposals; moving back from the shore in tiers, the DNR applies different principles in its review. He would really like to see the number of homes on the peninsula reduced, he would certainly like to see the road wider, and with that type of road he feels there will have to be covenants restricting parking. He also wonders if anyone has addressed questions such as how to get moving vans down the peninsula road and back. There may also be a weight restriction on the bridge. Those are issues that need to be addressed. He intends to vote against the current plan in the hope that doing so will allow the City to enter into some more negotiating that will result in lesser development of the peninsula. Commissioner Kapsner said most of his comments had been made by others. He agrees that if a landowner can meet requirements and wants to develop his property, he should be able to do so. There are many instances in Golden Valley with shared driveways very similar to the proposed peninsula road, which at its narrowest point serves not more than three homes. In his mind, this situation is a shared driveway, not a public road. He agrees with Commissioner Groger that this is a beautiful piece of property, and he would like it to remain the same, but he feels strongly that it is neither right nor fair for the City to say "you can't develop that property . because we like the way it looks now." . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Thirteen Vice Chair Pentel commented that there was obviously some disagreement among the Commissioners that was probably reflected in the audience as well. She asked if the Commissioners felt they should be voting on each issue as it came up. It was agreed thaUhe minutes should reflect the strength of feeling on individual issues, but the Council would be expecting a single recommendation. Vice Chair Pentel moved down to the sixth issue area, park dedication. In the first run-through of issues, it did not appear that the Commissioners had a great deal to say about the areas of bluff development or the landfill, so she proposed to skip over those. Commissioner Johnson said she would like to see an area set aside for picnic use as recommended by the Open Space Commission, with parking and canoe access to both lakes. She did not feel that was asking a great deal of the developer. She does not know where the City-owned lot is on the west side of the lake, and she thinks this development would be a beautiful spot in Golden Valley to have access for the public. She would also like to see some undeveloped open space in addition to the park site. She agrees with the Open Space Commission that the City should get the maximum amount of land allowable rather than accepting the cash value. For clarification, Commissioner McAleese asked if access to both lakes meant Commissioner Johnson wanted at least part of the park dedication to be on the peninsula; she said yes. Vice Chair Pentel asked if an access easement across the peninsula would be satisfactory; Commissioner Johnson said she had not thought about that level of detail. Director Grimes noted that there are many details which would have to be worked out before a final park dedication could be determined. The Park Department would have to evaluate any site in view of the rest of the park system and of the City's ability to maintain it. The Public Safety Department should be consulted with regard to policing issues. Vice Chair Pentel agreed that the City should require the maximum amount of land for park dedication. She suggested that the northernmost lot along the shore line of Sweeney lake would be a good location for a developed park. Also, within the development itself, things are very tight, and there is very little open space within the project that is not a steeply wooded slope, or someone's private yard, or road, or wetland. Putting the recreation area near the entry to the site might make public lake access more acceptable. She would like to see part of the peninsula left ina conservation easement; that area perhaps could count toward the park contribution if the City does not get the maximum amount of acreage through outright dedication. Director Grimes pointed out that this site is adjacent to the largest open space in Golden Valley, Wirth Park. The proposed trail system will open up Wirth Park, as it has not been in the past, through connection to park trails. Instead of unofficial paths across railroad tracks or whatever, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Fourteen . there will actually be dedicated public access, and that has some value to the City. There have been policing problems in Wirth Park because of its isolation and lack of access. Providing a better trail system will bring more people to the park, and the Director of Public Safety feels that will increase the level of safety for everyone. Commissioner Groger asked what sort of problems have come up in the park. DirectorGrimes read from a list of police incidents: disturbances, indecent exposure, intoxication, juvenile calls, one case of rape last summer. Patrol of the area has been left to Golden Valley police, even though it is a Minneapolis park. Commissioner Groger said that is one of his concerns. He likes the idea of public access to the lakes. He has been there only once, and had to trespass to do it. When he got Over to Twin lake, he was rather shocked, and he has not been back. He did not feel comfortable, because there was a lot of illegal activity going on. The police have had to restrict parking down by Highway 55, where many park visitors have sought access over the years. There are definite issues involving the behavior of the people who frequent Twin lake. He is concerned that outsiders looking for new ways down to Twin lake would learn about any park dedication in this development and will overrun the parking area so it would not serve Golden Valley residents. Commissioner McAleese commented that inappropriate behavior is not unusual in any Golden . Valley park. The way to deal with it is to ensure adequate policing. Director Grimes said that if it becomes easier for the public and the police to have legal access to more of the park area, problems can be reduced. Vice Chair Pentel agreed. Having public access to the lakes will not increase problems. This development and the development down on the Schaper area will have a substantial taming effect on park behavior. Commissioner Groger said he would support the move to have some park dedication, but not to the maximum amount allowed. Being surrounded on three sides by park land or lake, this is not an area that is in need of much more open space. He would like to have some access, but the City needs to keep in mind the public trail that has already been proposed. Commissioner Kapsner noted that the City has had access to Sweeney lake for along time, and did not see any need to develop it for park use, so it turned into a lot full of weeds and washed-out gullies. If the City is going to insist on lake access as part of the Hidden lakes proposal, the City.should also be prepared to spend the money needed to develop it rather than just having another patch of weeds going down to the lake. If the City isn't willing to take responsibility for another park, then it should not be telling the developer he has to dedicate the land. Commissioner McAleese supported the need for park dedication. He agreed that the most appropriate location is probably the lot indicated by Vice Chair Pentel. At the very least, all residents of Hidden lakes should have access to some form of open space on the peninsula, . , ,.' . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Fifteen and it would be nice to have public access for portaging canoes. A public park on the peninsula could cause real traffic problems because of road constraints, but many people have commented that portaging canoes across the peninsula is much easier than trying to deal with the bridge. There is a need for usable open space in the upper portion of the development as well. There seem to be several conflicting totals of open space for this PUD, ranging from 44.3 acres down to 13.9. One thing that still needs to be resolved is whether the developer should be allowed to continue limiting his discussion to just the Hidden Lakes development proposal, or if he should be required to address the PUD as a whole. Also, much of what the developer wants to count as open space is back yards, which are not what we generally think of when we talk about open space. Even the DNR seems unable to settle on the adequacy of the open space within the development. Of all the ways of counting open space in the proposal, the figure of 13.9 acres, which has been certified by a registered engineer, seems most appropriate for the City to use. The larger numbers all come from the developer and include a variety of "open" spaces. The 13.9 acres seems to include basically the wooded slopes and the small open areas around the road system. Vice Chair Pentel moved the discussion on to the issue area of variances. She recalled Commissioner McAleese's earlier comments about the need to be more strict on the peninsula development. . Commissioner Kapsner noted that width of streets had figured into much of the debate - whether they are workable or not. In solving that issue, a great number of variances would be eliminated. He does not have a strong feeling against narrow streets, and is willing to leave the final decisions to the Engineering Department as far as safety is concerned. A narrower street .can certainly serve a neighborhood. Some people seem to think that the developer is benefiting unfairly by having narrow streets, but he does not have a problem with the street width, and is confident that staff can resolve any problems. Once the streets are taken outof the discussion, many of the variance issues go away. Commissioner Johnson said the street variances were of the most concern to her as well. If the developer addresses the issues in the Oliver memo, she does not see the variances as a problem. Vice Chair Pentel said one of the issues that has not been much talked about is the small setbacks of the homes from the already narrow streets. The developer is using the minimum fifteen-foot setback from the narrow streets, and she wonders how that will play out visually. What sort of green space or tree plantings does that allow? How much of the area will actually be usable front yard as opposed to driveway? The narrower streets do not bother her, but there is only a fifteen-foot setback from the narrow street to a house that is going to be massive. She is.not talking about the peninsula here. For example, there will bea twenty-foot setback from the typical lot on the hilltop homes; with a twenty-foot wide street and homes on both sides, there is only sixty feet from home to home across the street. Currently in Golden . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Sixteen . Valley the standard is for sixty feet of right-of-way, plus setbacks. This development will have a very different appearance, and she is not sure that it will sell with the market segment the developer wants to attract. Also, this is another instance where the City is giving a bit from its normal standards,and she wonders what is being gained in return. Staff commented that there does seem to be a market for developments like Hidden Lakes. People who buy there will know what they are getting into, and they will be there by choice. Also, advocates of "neotraditional" planning say cities should move toward features like narrower streets and reduced front setbacks. Vice Chair Pentel responded that neotraditionalism is about much more than that; it features large common open spaces and short blocks with many street connections. This development is not neotraditional. Commissioner McAleese said the lack of common open space is his fundamental problem with this development. There are huge tracts of open space, but they are private yards. You can look, but not go in them. The people who live here will have beautiful houses, but they will live in pretty cramped quarters, and all they can do for recreation is walk the trail. There is no place where they can go out and throw a Frisbee around. Commissioner McAleese said he is also surprised to hear that the City Code does not apply to . private streets; he is sure it has been applied that way on other occasions. The subdivision chapter of City Code does say that front setback lines must be thirty-five feet back from public right-of-way. The PUD regulations say that PUD's can incorporate variances from the zoning chapter, not from other chapters of City Code. If there is right-of-way under these private streets, any reduction from the thirty-five feet still needs a separate subdivision variance. Subdivision variances require a demonstration of hardship, and the only reason for variances here is the developer is putting lots of homes in a small area. Commissioner McAleese is concerned about the procedural issues involved. Staff clarified that there are no rights-of-way; the term had been mistakenly applied to what are actually easements for utility purposes. Based on the clarification, Commissioner McAleese withdrew his comments on this point. Commissioner Kapsner stated that the Planning Commission is forgetting one thing: this site borders one of the largest parks in the metropolitan area. One-fourth of the peninsula is park -- wild, with trees. Everybody living here is within walking distance of park land. What Commissioner Groger said earlier is important: this development is providing public access to a lot of park land where there is no access now. There being no more comments on issue areas, the Commission moved on to formulating its recommendations. Commissioner Groger moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for Hidden Lakes PUD 74, subject to resolution of the issues raised in the Engineering memo, and subject to any subsequent motions that may be approved on specific issues. Vice Chair Pentel said she thought the Commission needed to get the issues . outlined before acting on the motion. . '-.. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Seventeen City Planner Knoblauch offered a list of issues that she had been maintaining as discussion progressed. Main points of concern seemed to fall into five points. There needs to be a Livable Communities element included in the plan. There i.s a big concern with public safety access, which seems to be well-covered under the broader heading of the Engineering memo. With regard to the peninsula, there should be fewer homes, with some public open space, and better justification for any variances; Preliminary covenants in draft form need to be available for City review as soon as possible. There must be public park area with access to both lakes. Director Grimes suggested a reference to the recommendations of the Open Space Commission to cover the park issue. Vice Chair Pentel and Commissioner Johnson wanted the wording to be stronger than that, with direct reference to park dedication and access to both lakes. Vice Chair Pentel noted that each Commissioner might have a different idea of how much the density on the peninsula should be reduced. Commissioner Kapsner said there is going to be disagreement on other issues as well, but the Commission has to rely on the minutes to reflect individual positions, and the Council will certainly want to spend a lot of time reviewing those minutes. He is willing to trust that his opinions will be conveyed by the minutes, even if they are not spelled out in the letter of the overall motion. . Commissioner Johnson summarized that, for review purposes, the motion is approval with the five issue areas being addressed. Commissioner McAleese recalled that earlier he had talked about forwarding a recommendation on whether this proposal is appropriate as a PUD. He felt there should be a motion on that point before the motion on the PUD plan. Commissioner Groger withdrew his earlier motion. Moved by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously thatthis application be deemed qualified as a PUD, submitting as facts the completeness of the application, supporting statements in the comprehensive plan, and the written opinion of the City Attorney. Vice Chair Pentel again summarized the elements of the motion on the preliminary design plan as discussed so far. Commissioner McAleese suggested one more issue, based on a comment he recalled Mr. Shardlow making: "The concept as you see it today is probably a little tighter than we'd like it to be." Commissioner McAleese felt it would be appropriate to forward that to the City Council in the form of a recommendation for reduced density throughout the rest of the development in addition to the peninsula recommendation. His recollection was that Mr. Shardlow had indicated a modified plan was already being considered but had not been completed. Director Grimes noted that, as the plan goes forward, other issues such as adequacy of the road widths or provision of public park land would contribute to reduced density without a separate recommendation. . ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,1997 Page Eighteen . Commissioner Lewis suggested a recommendation to explore options for additional site access. Director Grimes said the City has tried over the years, but keeps hitting a brick wall; with the currently proposed level of development, the existing access has been determined to be adequate for the expected traffic generation. Vice Chair Pentel asked for a new motion. Commissioner Groger asked if the subsequent issues are to be rolled into a single motion, and was told that they were. He noted that he would have to explain his motion very carefully in that case. Commissioner Groger moved to recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for Hidden Lakes PUD 74, subject to resolution of the issues in the Engineering memo as well as subsequent issues identified by the Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Johnson. For discussion purposes, City Planner Knoblauch restated the additional issues to be included in the motion. Commissioner Groger said he was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with his own motion. In the interest of moving on, he would accept the package. Looking at the list, it would be nice to see all of those issues resolved, but he thinks some of them are unreasonable. He would not necessarily deny the PUD based on them. He would strike all of the add-ons except for the Engineering memo in order to see the PUD approved. He wanted the Commissioners to keep in mind what the City is already getting. Also, he felt the city to some extent made the property unusable by not allowing medical office expansion in the past. The Commission has a beautiful development here, and a vast improvement over the site today. There will be no City money involved. The property will be cleaned up. It will give the City access to Twin Lake, which it does not have now. There is more open space in this development than there is in his neighborhood. If too many demands are placed on the developer, he rnay walk. The next development proposal might be a state-owned juvenile detention facility. He likes all of the ideas that have been raised, but he also really likes the general concept for this development and doesn't want to pick it apart. His overall feeling is that he wants to see this PUD proceed. . Commissioner Johnson said that she agrees with Commissioner Groger's comments. Maybe it would be better to begin with a motion on. the PUD concept, followed by separate motions on the issues. Commissioner Groger said he felt the Commissioners had adequate representation of individual views in the minutes, and on that basis he would support the package, unless another Commissioner had strong feelings against a specific issue being included. Commissioner Lewis stated that she would not recommend approval of the concept unless it was tied to affordable housing. She also would not support it without a reduction in the density . of the peninsula development. , . ~ . ..... . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Nineteen Vice Chair Pentel said that each Commissioner has specific concerns; each one has a different point at which he or she would say no to this proposal. She would hate to choose one issue over another. The City Council is certainly going to get a feel for what the Commission considers the major issues to be. Commissioner McAleese said he is a little uncomfortable now with this big, massive motion. He is opposed to the development proposal as it was presented to the Commission. He could probably vote in favor of the development that this motion represents, but it isn't what the developer is currently proposing. It is a wish list. If the Commission wants to vote on the package, fine, but that does not reflect the proposal as it stands. Director Grimes asked Commissioner McAleese just how much of the proposed development was. causing his negative position; it appeared to be a very small percentage of the overall proposal. Commissioner McAleese stated that the depth of his feeling is strong enough to make the failure to address those issues fatal in his mind. If the developer would take the Commission's suggestions and work with those before going to the Council, that would be okay. He is in favor of the idea of putting houses on the site. He is in favor of the ideas raised by the Commission. Historically, however, PUD concepts have been pretty straightforward. They have either been voted up or down. If voted down, the developer would then be told what he could change to gain support the next time. Vice Chair Pentel called the question. Moved by Groger, seconded by Johnson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Hidden lakes P.U.D. No. 74, subject to the following conditions: · The developer should contribute an unspecified number of units toward the City's Livable Communities affordable housing commitment; · The developer should resolve all issues identified in the Engineering staff memo dated February 13, 1997; · The developer should reduce the density of development on the peninsula, with some open space provided, and better justification for any remaining variances to be granted as part of the PUD; · The developer should have preliminary covenants available in draft form for City review as soon as possible; and · The. developer should dedicate park land, preferably with access to both Sweeney and Twin lakes, per the recommendations of the Open Space and Recreation Commission as stated in the letter dated March 3, 1997. Motion approved with five ayes and one nay. .. " . . . .*", MEMORANDUM Date: February 19, 1997 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: . Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan Review fora Portion of the Hidden lakes P.U.D. No. 74 (Known as the Golden Valley Health Center Site) -- Hidden lakes Development, Applicant Summary of Proposal The Hidden Lakes proposal involves redevelopment of 67.8 acres of the 79.5 acre Golden Valley Health Center PUD. (The area calculations that are used in this report are for those areas above the ordinary high water level (OHWL) for Sweeney Lake.) The PUD permit now provides only for institutional uses on the property; as proposed, it will cover a mixture of institutional and residential uses. The developer's plan which is attached and a part of the developer's submissions calls for a total of 176 residences, of which 110 will be townhomes, 41 will be single family homes, and 25 will be detached "villa" units. The PUD application document submitted by the developer and dated Jan., 1997 best describes the types of units that.are proposed in the development. The Health Center itself ceased operating in early 1990's. If this proposal is approved, only one of the former Health Center buildings will remain on the property. That building, located at the south side of the PUD, is being used by Transitional Health Care (THC) as a transitional medical care facility for persons who are too ill to remain at home or in a nursing home but do not need the advanced emergency medical and surgical facilities of a hospital. The total area of the existing THC site is 7.9 acre. Portions of the Courage Center (3.2 acres) and Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology (.57 acre) providing access, parking, ponding, and landscaping for those facilities, will also retain their current use and designation under the PUD permit. Staff and the developer had explored the possibility of removing the Courage Center and the Clinic of Neurology properties from the PUD because neither site is included in its entirety; however, owners of both have decided that they prefer the current situation. ~. .' This preliminary design plan may now be considered by the Planning Comrnission . because of several recent actiol)s. First, the City Council determined at its Feb. 4, 1997 meeting that no further environmental studies were needed for the project to continue through the planning process. This negative declaration on a need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) was approved on a 3-2 vote. A copy of the resolution is attached. The Planning Commissioners each received a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet upon which the City Council decision was based. As part of the EAW process, eight written comments were received by the City Council. A copy of those comments and City responses to them are attached. Second and third, the Planning Commission will consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map and zoning map for that portion ofthe proposed PUD where residential development is proposed. Recommendations will be made on both matters after an informal public hearing, and prior to the consideration of the PUD. Without amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, consideration of the PUD cannot go forward. If the Planning Commission recommends against these amendments, it must vote to recommend denial of the PUD based on inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. . (A separate staff report addressing the amendments to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map are a part of this agenda packet.) Eligibility of Application . This will be the first time in Golden Valley that detached single family homes have been included in a PUD proposal. The question has been raised as to whether City Code provides for an application of this nature. The completeness of the application has also been questioned. PUD's are regulated under City Code Section .11..55. Four subdivisions of that section come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below. After considering Hidden Lakes in view of all four subdivisions, staff find that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and may enter the Preliminary Plan stage of application, which is the first of two stages in the PUD process. Should there be continued questions about how staff have interpreted any portion of the four subdivisions, to the extent that a different interpretation might result in rejection of the proposal, CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 4 provides that the City Council shall make the final determination after receiving background information and a recommendation from the Planning Commission. PUD Definition -- PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. Specific reference is made to townhouses and apartments, but there is no mention of detached homes. On the other hand, without regard to type of use, Subd. 2.A.5 provides that "(d)evelopments having two or more principal use structures located on two or more tots either in single or multiple ownership" are eligible for PUD application "provided . the combined area totals one or more acres and the plan submitted includes the 2 . entire area to which the planned unit will apply." Clearly, the Hidden Lakes application meets this code definition of a PUD. PUD Purpose and Intent -- PUD applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of. PUD's in Golden Valley, as set out in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 1. According to Subd. 1, a main function of the City's PUD process is to encourage "the use of contemporary land planning principles and coordinated community design." The Hidden Lakes proposal incorporates several features that reflect state- of-the-art planning principles and design practices for residential development, including efforts to conserve a variety of natural site features, narrower streets to de- emphasize the automobile, clustering of homes, and unified street furnishing and architectural controls. . Subd. 1 also states that the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." The applicant could probably manage to achieve a similar combination of housing types by coming in for individual rezonings of sub-areas of the site for single family, two family, and multiple dwelling use; however, the standard requirements under those sections of City Code definitely do not allow the flexibility of design that is needed for this proposal. Under standard zoning, the City also does not get the same degree of input into the design and development of the site. Some or all of the former Health Center property will ultimately be redeveloped, whether the current proposal is approved or not. Given the characteristics of the site, it appears that the application of standard zoning provisions would be too rigid for practical application regardless of the type of land use that might be proposed. Standards and Criteria for PUD's -- City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Residential and institutional uses .are grouped together under a.single category for the purposes of this subdivision. According to the specific wording of Subd.5.B, only an apartment development would fall into the residential PUD category. Over the years, however, the City has consistently applied the established standards and criteria to all residential PUD applications, many of which have consisted of twin homes or town homes. The Hidden Lakes application is being held to the requirements of Subd. 5.B as well. . There are eight items covered under the basic standards for residential and institutional PUD's. Only two can be unquestionably demonstrated atthis time. Others will be formalized in various plans and agreements, some of which are not required until the General Plan stage of application. The list is as follows: 1. All residential or institutional PUD's must have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public street "as measured at building setback line," which is 35 feet back from the property line. The "neck" of the subject property, which provides access to Golden Valley Road, is more than twice the required width. 3 2. All development must be served by public sewer and water, and fire . hydrants must be installed according to a plan approved by City Staff. Water and sewer lines are available at the site. Detailed planning for utility service, including fire hydrants, will come with the General Plan. 3. No principal building within the PUD can be located closer than the measurement of its own height to a rear or side property line when such line abuts a single family use. While it is not specifically defined,staff interpret "property line" to refer to the PUD site as a whole, meaning that this requirement applies only along the exterior PUD boundary, and not along interior PUD lot lines. The former Golden Valley Health Center property has no single family uses directly abutting its side or rear property lines, except across the lake, which effectively ensures that this standard will be met. 4. Private roadways within the PUD must be constructed according to a plan and with the approval of the City Engineer as to type and location. Engineering staff.are already reviewing preliminary plans for the private road system, and will have several requirements that the applicant must incorporate into the plans before the General Plan stage of application. 5. No building within the PUD can be located closer than 15 feet from the back of the curb along any internal road. Preliminary plans meet this requirement. Staff will see that it continues to be met at the General Plan . stage. . . 6. Provisions for solid waste storage and disposal must be in accordance with a plan approved by the City. Again, this level of detail will be handled at the General Plan stage of application. . 7. Landscaping must be in accordance with a detailed planting plan approved by the City, and must meet the established minimum landscape standards for the type of development. Detailed landscape plans are a ' General Plan requirement. Because of the many mature trees already on the property, the applicant is specifically being required to come in with plans for preservation of existing greenery rather than the wholesale clearance and replacement that the normal landscaping standards would allow. 8. Shared land, buildings, or infrastructure must be either dedicated to the general public, placed under a landlord's control, or regulated through a landowners association. If the association option is used, its covenants are subject to review and approval by the City before final PUD approval. Completeness of Application Packet -- The final screening of the Hidden Lakes proposal for eligibility purposes is based on CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which establishes the various components that must be submitted at the Preliminary Plan . stage of application. The City is in possession of the required application form, the preliminary design exhibits, the required mailing list, a preliminary plat application, 4 . . . and an application filing fee, and staff find all components suitably complete. As allowed by Subd.6.A.5, the applicant has also supplied information beyond the minimum requirements, in order to better explain the proposed development. PUD Amendment or New PUD? There has been some confusion over whether this proposal constitutes an amendment to an existing PUD or the creation of an entirely new one. Simply put, in terms of the PUD process and its requirements, it makes no difference. CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 11 specifies that any change to an existing PUD "shall require that an application be filed for an amended permit and all procedures shall then apply as if a new permit was being applied for (emphasis added)." By the most narrow interpretation, this is a PUD amendment: there is an existing permit, and the applicant wants to modify its terms. For administrative purposes, the degree of change is enough that staff are treating it as a new PUD. If the proposal is approved, a substantial part of the PUD's land area will be changing from an institutional use to residential. That same land area will be replatted. There will be many more individual plans and agreements attached to the permit than at present. The very name of the PUD will no longer be appropriate. To keep everything straight, the proposal has been assigned a new PUD number and the Hidden Lakes name is being used instead of the Golden Valley Health Center. Because of the amount of City time and effort being spent as the proposal goes through the application process, the applicant has paid the application fee required for new PUD's rather than a lesser fee that is generally charged for amendments. Preliminary Plan Consideration As already indicated, there are two stages of approval for all PUD proposals. This is the first, or Preliminary Plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad concept approval to a proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will ultimately become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are clearly laid out. CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.Dprovides that: "The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land. use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications." 5 Issues for Consideration . As stated in the section above, the Planning Commission's review and recommendation to the City Council is to concern the appropriateness of the proposed land use in the PUD and to recommend changes to the Preliminary Design Plan that would improve or enhance the development. The staff has spent many hours reviewing this proposed development as part of the earlier environmental review process and the current preliminary design application. These reviews have been going on for almost two years. There are still issues that have to be addressed in greater detail. However, it is the staff's finding that the proposed preliminary design plan for the Hidden Lakes PUD represents an appropriate. use for this location assuming that the comprehensive plan map and zoning map are amended to permit low density residential development on a portion of the PUD. In this section of the memo, staff will outline the major issues that have been addressed or remain to be addressed as part of the approval process. Many of the issues will be ones that would be a part of the overall approval of the General Plan of Development or issues that will be made a part of the approval process by the Inspections or Engineering Departments. Engineering Issues -- Jeff Oliver, Assistant City Engineer, has prepared a memo to me dated Feb. 13, 1997 (attached) that addresses many issues related to this development. The memo is based on extensive review of the plans and several meetings with key City staff, oth~r public agencies, and representatives of the developer. As stated in the memo, the engineering staff believes thatthe project concept is feasible but there are issues that have to be further analyzed prior to the final approval of the PUD. Although the memo is from the Engineering Department, its concerns have also been reviewed by the Planning and Inspections Departments. The entire City staff review team agrees with the findings. . There are many technical items addressed in the Oliver memo that the staff believes must be dealt with prior to final approval of the PUD. Rather than repeat all of them, I would like to highlight some of the areas that the Planning staff would like to emphasize: 1. A final tree preservation plan will have to be submitted prior to the final approval of the PUD. This plan will be reviewed by City staff including the City forester. The developer has gone to great expense to accurately identify the trees on the site. This information will be put to good use. Staff believes it is in the best interest of both the City and developer to preserve as many quality trees as possible. As part of the overall landscaping plan for the development, other trees will be added to compensate for those that are lost. 2. The staff believes it is important for the plan to include multiple accesses to the neighborhood clusters, in order to better provide for emergency vehicle access. Staff will work with the developer to redesign the private . 6 . street system with more access points to the neighborhoods prior to approval of the final PUD. The Planning Department recognizes that the narrow streets proposed for the development are in keeping with contemporary urban design for residential neighborhoods. However, the street geometrics must be for adequate for emergency vehicle usage. Each of the curves, cul-de-sacs and turn-around areas will have to be evaluated to ensure that the City's emergency vehicles can turn around. 3. The developer must provide the City with all appropriate easements for utilities, storm water ponds, and emergency vehicle access. All such easements will have to be prepared or approved by the City. 4. During the EAW review, concern was expressed by three members of the public regarding springs and seeps on the peninsula. The developer must submit a plan to minimize the effect of development on these springs and seeps. The plan would be approved by the City prior to any construction beginning. Staff will require pre-construction ground water level measurement in order to establish solid baseline data, and an ongoing monitoring program. 5. The City will require an erosion control plan prior to the start of construction. This plan is subject to review by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 6. Staff is concerned about the proposed villa homes on lots 6-19, block 6. In order to minimize adverse impacts on the steep slope at the back of these lots, staff recommend moving the buildable areas closer to the street and/or prohibiting any rear "walk-outs" on those lots. 7. The developer is proposing to fill a wetland adjacent to Twin Lake on the peninsula. The state Wetland Conservation Act requires that all wetland impacts be avoided if possible. Staff has met with the developer to explore alternatives to this wetland filling and these discussions will continue. 8. The City will be requiring conservation easements in various locations throughout the development, in order to protect the heavily wooded slope near the southeast.po.rtion of the site as well as all shoreland and wetland areas. These easements will restrict the type of activities and extent of development permitted in the affected areas. As stated in the Oliver memo, the full extent of the conservation easements will be established during final plan review. The City will be made a party to the easements. The use of the lakeshore will be addressed as part of these easements. 9. The developer must provide the City with the plan for maintenance of yards and common areas. This plan will have to include provisions to minimize or eliminate the use of phosphorus fertilizers. 10. The City will require an overall landscaping plan for the project which will include areas such as cul-de-sacs, half circles and the THC property. . . 7 Staff will also. want to. have a general idea abo.utthe landscaping o.f each '. o.f the Io.ts. A referestatien plan will be required as part o.f the final plan. 11. Staff will be propesing that the City Co.uncil ask the Minneso.ta DNR to. restrict Twin Lake to. no.n-mo.terized beats with a po.ssible exceptio.n far electric meto.rs. The bridge to. the peninsula must be designed to. allo.w easy po.rtage ef canees and ather small beats between Sweeney and Twin Lakes. The Planning staff reco.mmends that reso.lutien o.f the issues raised in the entire Oliver memo. be made a co.nditien o.f approval o.f this preliminary design plan. This will indicate to. the City Ceuncil that the Planning Co.mmissio.ns believes these matters must be addressed prio.r to. approval ef the General Plan o.f Develo.pment. The pro.po.sed peninsula develepment has been reviewed by the City and ather agencies, including the DNR as part o.f the EAW process. The plan that was reviewed by the DNR is the same as the preliminary design plan. The DNR stated in its cemment letter regarding the EAW that the "evaluatio.n o.f the mo.dified pro.ject . in a sho.reland management co.ntext, including the pro.pesed peninsula develo.pment, leads us to. co.nclude that the pro.ject is co.nsistent with the applicable 8 . shoreland management standards as administered by the City of Golden Valley. The new peninsula development proposal represents an improvement over the original configuration." (In early 1996, the developer had proposed 13 lots on the peninsula.) The developer has stated that no variances are needed from the Shoreland Management code in order to permit development of the peninsula. Each of the lots exceeds the minimum 80 ft. of width and the proposed structures meet or exceed the minimum 75 ft. setback from the 827.7 ft. ordinary high water level (OHWL) established for Sweeney and Twin Lakes by the DNR in early 1996. One concern raised by several commenters on the EAW is that the private road proposed to serve the lots on the peninsula comes too close to the OHWL. This private road comes as close as 50 ft. from the OHWL over the seven southern lots on the peninsula. The Shoreland code states that all roads and parking areas must also meet the required 75 ft. setback from the OHWL. The code goes on to state that "in no instance shall these (roads and parking areas) be placed less than 50 ft. from the ordinary high water mark." The DNR has determined that even with the road at a minimum of 50 ft. from the OHWL, the proposal meets the Shoreland Management standards administered by the City. . If the developer is not permitted to place the peninsula road as close as 50 ft. of the OHWL, development of the south 7 lots will not be feasible. The Planning Commission must consider the effect of this private road on the overall natural environment. If the road is approved, are there any landscape or engineering features that could be recommended in order to "softenJl its presence? The alternative is to recommend that the peninsula not be developed so intensely as to require the road to be built within 50 ft. of the OHWL. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission examine the storm water runoff plan when considering the effect of locating a portion of the peninsula road as close as 50 ft. of the OHWL. In the Shoreland Management chapter, 11.65, Subd. 5, C., the Code states that "Roads and parking areas shall be located to retard the runoff of surface waters and nutrients......" The code goes on to state that roads and parking areas shall be setback the same distance as structures where feasible and practical and in no case closer than 50 ft. to the OHWL. It states that natural vegetation and other natural materials shall be used to screen parking areas when viewed from the water. The runoff from this road and all adjacent impervious surfaces will be directed northward into a storm water management pond, where it can be appropriately treated prior to its entry into Sweeney or Twin Lake. This will be a requirement of the City as part of the final PUD approval. As stated earlier, one ofthe main purposes of the Shoreland Management code is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters. By directing runoff from all impervious surfaces on the peninsula to storm water management ponds, the developer is indicating an intent to follow the spirit of the code. The staff will also be requiring landscaping on the lake side of the road surface to screen the road from Twin Lake. 9 As stated previously,. the developer proposes the filling of a small wetland on the peninsula. Through the provisions of the state Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), the City controls any wetland filling. The developer has stated that he will work with the City to either reduce or eliminate the need to fill. At this time, staff believes that the filling is avoidable. As part of the WCA approval process, additional information will have to be submitted to the City. . During the EAW review, several commenters raised issues about the reliability of surveys submitted by the develQper to determine overall elevations on the peninsula, width of the peninsula, and the OHWL. It is the City Engineer's and the City Attorney's opinionthat the information submitted by the developer and signed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota is valid. Staff believes that further discussion of this matter is not germane to the PUD proposal. Traffic Considerations -- The City hired SEH Consulting Engineers to evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed 176 unit Hidden Lakes development as part of the EAW process. Based on this study that was prepared in 1996, the proposed development would generate 1,385 trips in a 24 hour period. These trips would all enter and exit the site by way of Golden Valley Road (Co. Rd. 66) and Glenwood Hills Drive (the existing main driveway). Based on existing and anticipated traffic on Golden Valley Road, no street system changes are necessary to handle the anticipated traffic increase ~rom this proposed development. The level of service at . the intersection of Golden Valley Rd. and Glenwood Hills Dr. would remain the same as in 1996 when the SEH study was prepared. There has been discussion in the past about attempting to establish another access point to this property. Unfortunately, access cannot be gained from the south, east or west due to the constraints of Wirth Park and the lakes. The Minneapolis Park Board was approached several years ago, at which time it told the City that access through Wirth Park would not be acceptable. Because of the low density of the residential development and the relatively low traffic generated from THC, this type of proposal is ideal when access is limited. Any other type of higher density or commercial development would cause traffic congestion on Golden Valley Rd. Because of the inability to gain access to this site through Wirth Park, all internal roads will be dead-end roads. As the crow flies, it is about 2,500 ft. from Golden Valley Rd. to the THC hospital. It would be farther to the last home on the peninsula. To minimize potential public safety impacts, staff recommend that roads be designed to accommodate the City's largest emergency vehicles two abreast. As noted in the Oliver memo, there will also have to be adequately sized cul-de-sacs or turn-around areas at the end of each street. As an additional fire safety measure, . the Public Safety Department has stated that it will work with the developer to have fire sprinklers placed in every residence 10 . There was a suggestion from a member of the public that the Hidden lakes Development should use the secondary access to Golden Valley Road on the east side of the Courage Center for emergency access to the site. Staff has reviewed this matter with the Fire Chief. It is the Chiefs opinion that such access would not provide any significant added safety. . Access to the site from Golden Valley Rd. will remain as it is today with the exception of signage and other improved entry amenities. The developer is planning to meet with Hennepin County to discuss possible improvements to Golden Valley Rd. that could enhance this site and the surrounding areas between Wirth Parkway and Highway 100. As shown on the attached site plan, the developer will improve the entry road now known as Glenwood Hills Drive. The proposed improvements have been discussed and approved by all parties to the PUD. Because of the significant amount of traffic that serves the Courage Center, a new detached entry drive to the Courage Center parking area will be constructed. Therefore, all access to the Courage Center lots will occur at one point which will be across from the Neurology Clinic entrance. There is also a plan for a concierge facility near the site entrance to serve occupants of the residential areas. This concept is explained in greater detail in the developer's packet. The concierge building will be located in the median of the main entry road. The City must review the concierge facility plans to insure that the building does not create any impediments to site entry Park Dedication -- The subdivision chapter of City Code requires a dedication for parks as part of any new subdivision in golden Valley. In the case of Hidden lakes, there is also a special provision found in the existing PUD 45 permit. It states that the City Council will deal with park dedication issues any time the permit is amended to accommodate additional development. When PUD 45 was originally subdivided and approved, no specific additional development plans were known, so the City Council determined that this would be the best way to address the need for park space on the site. As indicated on the site plan, no public open space or park is proposed as part of the development with the exception of a trail along the main internal roadway from north to south. The trail will connect Golden Valley Rd. with Wirth Park. It is the intent of staff to have an easement dedicated to the City over this trail. The City hopes to meet with the Minneapolis Park Board to discuss a connection between the proposed Hidden lakes trail. and existing trails within Wirth Park. Eventually there could also be a connection to the planned regional bicycle trail along the Chicago and Northwestern railroad tracks south of the site. . The Park and Open Space Commission has met to make a recommendation on the park and open space component of the preliminary design plan. At a meeting on Feb. 17, 1997, the Commission restated its desire that there should be a lakefront park dedicated to the public as part of this development. The Commission believes that the park should include minimal parking, tot lot, canoe launch and picnic tables. 11 This has been the position of the Commission for many years. It is stated among . the findings and recommendations in the Parks element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: "The City should investigate and propose a means of public access to Sweeney and Twin Lake which does not impose any adversity to the surrounding land owners. Public access to Sweeney Lake should be achieved by entry from the west or east side of Twin Lake." The Park plan calls for coordinating any efforts in trail development with the Minneapolis Park Board and Hennepin Parks. Another of the plan's findings notes that: "(g)enerally, the existing park system in Golden Valley is sufficient to serve the present population." At the time the plan was adopted, the City's population was higher than it is today. The developer's position on park dedication is that any public park land within Hidden Lakes would destroy the integrity of the development plan. This position will be addressed by the developer in front of the Planning Commission. The developer's preference is to give a cash dedication instead of a land dedication for parks. The final decision is to be made by the City Council. The Planning . Commission can support the Open Space Commission or make its own recommendation to the Council on the park dedication matter. City Housing Goals -- As part of its Livable Communities (LC) participation, the City has committed to make certain efforts in the area of housing. When LC goals established by the City Council are reviewed, Hidden Lakes helps the City in some areas but not others. One advantage of the proposed development is that it would add more life cycle housing for the community. Its low maintenance townhomes and villa homes provide a greater opportunity for households desiring that option in Golden Valley. The staff has already been contacted by many individuals interested in the housing proposed in Hidden Lakes because it offers low maintenance living. The development is relatively low density with only about2.6 units per acre. This density is similar to most single family developments in Golden Valley, so it neither helps nor hurts the City in terms of density. The housing proposed in Hidden Lakes will definitely not help the City meet its LC affordability goal. The lowest priced townhome unit will be in the upper $200,000 range. The developer has stated that it would not be possible to include more affordable housing (Metro Council defines LC affordability as below $115,000) due to the land and development costs related to this site. . 12 . . . VARIANCES FROM S1 ANDARD PROVISIONS OF ZONING CODE As part of the application, the City requires that the developer list the variances that are required for this development to occur assuming "normal" zoning criteria. Inthe case of Hidden Lakes, the number of variances are so numerous the staff has chosen notto list them. The variances include such categories as building setback, street width, cul-de-sac length, etc. Allowing differences from "normal" zoning is the function of the PUD process as long as those "variances" allow for the development of a better plan for the site and the City as a whole. In the case of Hidden Lakes, it would be difficult or impossible to develop this property using normal zoning categories due to the limited access from Golden Valley Rd., the physical attributes of the site, and the mixture of institutional and residential uses. The staff will carefully review and evaluate all plans to ensure that any "variances" from normal city requirements will not cause a hazardous or undesirable situation for the development or the City as a whole. Recommended Action As stated early in this memo, the purpose of the preliminary design plan is to determine if the proposed development is an appropriate land use under the general principles and standards adhered to by the City. The Planning staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for Hidden Lakes, provided that the Planning Commission also recommends approval of the accompanying Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendment. In the staff's opinion, the developer has submitted a plan that is an appropriate land use in an area of the City that is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map as low density residential and on the Zoning Map as Residential. The proposed mix of low density residential development with the three existing institutional uses creates an overall density of development that will not overwhelm the site from either a development or traffic perspective. The developer has shown that special effort will be made to protect the shoreland, vegetation, and steep slopes found on the site. Water quality of the two lakes will also be maintained at its current level or enhanced. All of these points are in keeping with general principles and standards promoted by the City and its residents. As also noted earlier, it is entirely appropriate for the Planning Commission to suggest changes that would improve and enhance the development. If the Commission agrees that the pro"posed use is generally acceptable for the site but has concerns about specific issues, these specific issues should be called out for additional review and possible revision. At minimum, staff recommends that the Oliver memo be adopted as part of this plan approval. The issues that are outlined in the Oliver memo are derived from the input from the EAW process and from staff review of the project design. With this memo to provide guidance, the developer will 13 \ J , . : 14001 i i I-~ I .~ j~:'~~/. .JJ '- . ~""". . .~'~ ~~~ .... t ~ .. ),ot.t : I ~'tJ'. I .- ~n\i' I -. ~. ~~ I;' l"t~t7. II' I I. , ., -- . . . have clear direction for the for the submittals necessary in the General Plan stage of this project. The staff believes that the issues in the Oliver memo covers most, if not all, the information that is listed in the PUD chapter regarding General Plan requirements. (Sec. 11.55,.Subd. 7, B. and C.) The Commission may choose to add other recommendations for City Council consideration. One of those recommendations may involve the amount and location of developmentthat should be allowed on the peninsula. If there is agreement that the overall development concept is acceptable except that there is no dedicated park space, there may also be a Planning Commission recommendation on that specific aspect of the plan, or the Planning Commission could defer to the Open Space Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission may go on to add any other recommendations for specific improvements to the PUD as deemed appropriate. MWG:mkd Attachments: Location Map Memo by Jeff Oliver, Asst. City Engineer, dated 2/13/97 Memo from Rick Jacobson -- Golden Valley Park & Recreation dated 2/19/97 Hidden' Lakes Preliminary Plat Submission Booklet Site and other Plans (enclosed separately) NOTE: Please refer to your City Code regarding Shoreland Management and PUD information. 14 \ --- I I I . . .. 1] \\ It\ I :'1:/~ ' .. I .. .4.~..(A., ~I ~ I .:~ .. [ .. I . ... I ~. " r I ..' -- --.,." i I ,.. t P II: \. .... ... I ~~.1. I : :,,01 t~~,,~ I w "t , \a '" I;' .. ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~~ fo)< . MEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1997 MARK GRIMES DIRECTOR OF PLA4l NNIN . D DEVELOPMENT JEFF OLIVER, P.E. ASSISTANT CITY ER PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR HIDDEN LAKES P.U.D. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed Hidden Lakes Planned Unit Development. Bas.ed upon this review, staff has determined that from an engineering standpoint the project concept appears feasible. However, there are many issues which staff feels must be addressed prior to final approval of the PUD. These issues, grouped by the plan sheet that they are shown on, are as follows: . EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN: 1. Although this plan does show the general location of all the trees on site, it does not include the information from the tree survey performed by the developer. During final plan review a plan must be submitted that shows the location of all the inventoried trees on site, with the inventory numbers shown. The inventory of trees, including the species and diameter must accompany this plan. Each tree included on this inventory should have a designation as to its fate during the project development. Suggested categories for this designation include: a) Tree to be saved; b) Tree to be removed; c) Tree to be removed during custom grading; d) Tree may be removed during custom grading. PRELIMINARY PLAT: 1. The preliminary plat includes clustered housing with single access points into the clusters. Although this approach may promote the feeling of a neighborhood in each cluster, it does present problems for public safety and traffic circulation. For example, the roadway which parallels the shoreline of Sweeney Lake has only one feed point off of the main roadway. Emergency vehicles that must access the southern . most lots on this street will have difficulty accessing the area and . . staging in the narrow streets. Multiple roadways into each cluster will permit multiple. emergency vehicle access at one time. Possible solutions to this issue include connection of the main street and the subject street to the north of Lot 1, Block 10, where the trail connection between the streets is proposed. A second option for this situation is the extension of the cul-de-sac in Block 10 to connect to the main street. Either intersection could include the half islands or "round abouts" that. appear elsewhere in the development. Some.signing could also be installed at the intersections to direct traffic to the THe facility up the main road. 2. A second access into the cluster within the Block 2, 3 and 4 is also necessary. 3. An additional connection should be provided for the northem cul-de- sac in Block 9. This street could either be extended northward to align with the street in Blocks 2, 3 and 4, or it could extend to the west to connect with the main road and the previously discussed extension .from the west. 4. Design of roadways must include consideration of the tuming radius of large vehicles such as fire trucks. The importance of large radii at intersections is magnified with narrow roadways and center islands because there is less roadWay surface for tuming vehicles to utilize. With this in mind, staff reviewed the intersections and cul-de-sacs within this development for the ability of a single unit with a 40 foot wheel base. The largest Golden Valley fire truck is slightly longer, with a 41.6 foot wheel base. The ability of the proposed intersections and cul-de-sacs to accomrnodate this design vehicle is summarized as follows: . a) The 45 foot radius on the cul-de...sacs is just large enough to accommodate the tuming movement. However, the front wheels of the vehicle would be in the outside gutter line and the back tires would be on the gutter line of the center island. This will be an acceptable situation during the summer months the tum may not be possible if the roadway is not kept completely clear of snow at all times. b) Due to its unusual shape, it appears that the cul-de-sac in the southeast comer of the development may not be able to accommodate the 40 foot design vehicle. . . c} With its center islands and narrow widths, the intersection of the main roadway onto the roadway paralleling the lake is not capable of accommodating the 40 foot design vehicle. In order to accomplish the movement, the vehicle would need to cross one of the center islands. d} The intersection in the vicinity of pond 3, and the other similar intersections, appear to be able to accommodate the required compound turning movement provided the turn is executed very accurately, there is no oncoming traffic and there is no loss of roadway width to snow bank creep. e} The intersection of the peninsula roadway and the north/south roadway cannot accommodate the turning movements of the design vehicle. 5. The roadway on the peninsula must provide some means of turning vehicles at the south end. Options include a cul-de-sac or a looped . driveway that serves the house and as a turn-around. 6. The preliminary plat must include all proposed drainage and utility easements. Staff suggest that the easements extend 10 feet behind the back of curb on each roadway. This easement would allow ample room for the location of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain, as well as the other private utilities that will be needed. . 7. Plans should be submitted during the final review process that show the proposed location of all private utilities (electric, cable lV, gas, etc.) within the drainage and utility easements discussed above. This will insure that none of the utilities conflict with each other. Of particular concern is the access to the deeper sanitary sewer and watermain systems for maintenance and repairs. A standard location plan can be established during final plan review. 8. The existing easements shown on the preliminary plat should be vacated as part of the development. This should include all easements in favor of the City such as the drainage easement over the la~es, as well as those easements running in favor of other companies or agencies. The appropriate drainage and utility easements can then be dedicated on the final plat. . 9. Adequate drainage and utility easements must be included to allow the City to access the storm water ponds along the shoreline of Sweeney Lake. In addition to the. easements, adequate access must be provided to allow trucks and dredging equipment to reach the ponds for maintenance. . GRADING PLAN: 1. The scale of the submitted grading plan makes a detailed review very difficult. However, in concept the grading plan is acceptable. The developer will be required to submit a final grading plan at a 1"=50' scale. The final grading plan must include the following information for review: a) Proposed lot corner elevations in all mass graded areas. b) Low floor elevations for all units adjacent to ponds or waterbodies. These elevations must bea minimum of one foot above the 100 year high water level of each waterbody. c) Flow direction arrows on all streets, swales and lots. Elevations should be shown at all drainage break points. d) Emergency overflows should be provided at all low points within the streets if possible. 2. The final grading plan must also include. the location of all the springs located within the property. As part of the review process a ground water level monitoring program will be established, similar to the study proposed by the developer. In order to provide solid baseline data for a ground water study, monitoring of existing levels should begin as soon as possible. Details of the plan can then be developed based upon existing levels. . 3. A final erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted for review. This plan must also be in a 1"=50' scale. The plan must include locations, detail plates and maintenance schedules for all erosion and sediment control measures on the site. The plan will be subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 4. The final grading plan must include the installation of orange snow fencing at all grading limits, at the driplines of all trees that are to be preserved, at the limits of all wetlands and waterbodies and any other locations where existing physical features are to be protected. . " . . . 5. The final grading plan must also include the location of all temporary sedimentation basins and outlet structures. A detailed grading schedule that minimizes the amount the area being graded at one time will also be required. The plan must include temporary revegetation of disturbed areas within 48 hours of the completion of grading. 6. Staff is concerned about the impacts to the existing wetland in Wirth Park that pond system 3 discharges into. Because this wetland is landlocked, it may be very sensitive to increased or decreased volumes of runoff, resulting in higher water levels that would kill adjacent trees, or lower water levels that would threaten the viability of the wetland. An analysis should be. performed indicating if water levels will increase or decrease due to development, or if evaporation and infiltration will be adequate to keep the water levels from changing significantly. 7. All graded slopes with slopes 4: 1 and greater within the project must have wood fiber blanket, or some similar erosion control application, installed within 24 hours of the completion of grading. 8. No graded slopes should be greater than 3: 1 slopes. Slopes greater than this are not maintainable. 9. Because of the sensitivity of this site, erosion and sediment control must be of concern at all phases of the development. Therefore, the developer will be required to submit individual erosion control plans for each of the lots before home construction begins. Details of the content of these individual plans can be developed during final plan review. In addition, staff will consider limiting the number of building permits issued in this development prior to the paving of streets and installation of appropriate long term erosion control measures. 10. All the catch basins within roadways must be constructed as sump inlet structures. to provide additional sediment removal. 11. Engineering staff reserves the right to revise the proposed storm drainage system during review of the final grading plan and construction plans. 12. The City will consider a special drainage district to help alleviate some of the increased costs for storm water maintenance created by this' development. Of particular concern is the long term maintenance and operation of the proposed storm water lift station that will pump runoff from the peninsula into pond 2. 13. Emergency overflow swales, with appropriate structural erosion control, . must be provided for each of the storm water ponds. 14. During final design review the developer will be required to submit all storm water calculations, including pre/post development runoff, storm sewer sizing and nutrient removal calculations for the review by the City and the watershed. 15. The outlet to pond 2 should be moved as far north as possible to maximize the spacing between the inlet and outlet. 16. The developer has proposed that Lots 6-19, Block 6 be custom graded in order to limit the amount of grading needed on the slopes, and to limit the number of trees that are removed. These lots are also all slated to have walk-out units, which may work to the detriment of the custom grading. Many residents in walk-out homes will want to have a usable rear yard area at the walk-out. This will result in additional grading, and the associated impacts, behind each unit. Several steps may be taken to help limit impacts to this slope. One measure would be to not allow walk-outs on any of these units, limiting the basements to "look out" type construction. Another option would be to exercise some flexibility under the PUD and reduce the front yard setback on . these lots. The reduced setback would pull these units toward the front of the lot, which would further reduce the amount of custom grading and tree removal for home construction. The effects of reducing the front setbacks on the east side of this road should also be investigated. 17. The City reserves the right, during final plan review, to limit the style or type of home that can be constructed on each lot based upon engineering, environmental or building code concems. 18. Further consideration will be given to setbacks, densities, lot line locations and other portions of this development during final plan review to limit impacts to the physical features on site. 19. The grading plan indicates that the outlet for pond system 3 will terminate on the south property line, which is located part way down a steep slope leading into Wirth Park. This situation will pose a long term threat of erosion downhill from the outlet. The developer should investigate altematives to the current plan, including but not limited to, extension of the outlet pipe further down the hill on Minneapolis Park Board property. . . 20. The grading plan indicates filling of a wetland adjacent to Twin lake in the vicinity of lots 8 and 9, Block 11. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) , requires that all wetland impacts be avoided if possible. If impacts cannot be avoided, they must be minimized,and finally, any unavoidable impacts must be mitigated. Based upon the review of the grading plan, staff feels that the wetland filling may be avoidable, and certainly can be minimized. The developer must provide additional information, as required by WCA, regarding this sequencing of wetland impacts for review and comment. UTILITY PLAN: . . 1. A large area within the south-central portion of this development was previously filled with construction debris and covered with earthen fill. The developer has been performing dynamic compaction of this fill area in order to improve the engineering qualities of the soils so building can occur. Most of the structural concerns of building over this fill can be addressed through proper design of footings and buildings, which will be reviewed by the Inspections Department. However, installation of utilities such as watermain and sanitary sewer and watermains present unique construction concerns. The developer will be required to provide detailed information regarding utility construction in this area as part of the final PUD and construction plan review. 2. Well over half of the total living units in this development are on dead- end watermains. In some instances this can create problems with water pressure and supplies during peak hours. Because of the proximity of this development to the water reservoir and trunk mains, it is not anticipated that water pressure will be a problem on these dead- end mains. However, given that some of the dead-ends serve over 20 units, inadequate flow during peak hours may be a problem. Therefore, the developer will be required to submit a water system model for this development that demonstrates adequate domestic and fire flow availability during peak use hours. 3. The watermain within the Block 2, 3 and 4 cluster must be looped to connect to the main on the main street. 4. All existing utilities within the project site that will not become part of the new system must be removed during construction. The exception to this may be the existing sanitary sewer line near the shore of Twin lake in Block 10. In order to limit the impacts of excavating this line, it may be disconnected, capped and filled. The top sections of the manholes should be removed. However, adequate ties to the abandoned line must be provided so it can be relocated in the future if . necessary. 5. All sanitary sewer and watermain within this development will be owned and maintained by the City of Golden Valley following .installation by the developer. Therefore, the construction plans must be reviewed by the City and other appropriate agencies. The City will also provide construction inspection for the utilities. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with the City inspection. 6. Each unit within this development must have its own sanitary sewer and water service. Shared services will not be permitted. I:" "'rhe developer should provide information regarding the extent of irrigation of common areas within the development. Sprinkler systems must have meters separate from domestic meters. 8. The plan indicates a 10 inch sewer on the street parallel to the lakeshore. The developer must provide information on the flows in this pipe to justify the oversizing. Oversized sewers will not be permitted if it is being installed to utilize the flatter grade allowed. This low flows in a flat pipe will not provide high enough velocities to keep the pipe self- cleaning. . 9. Construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer and storm sewer lift stations must be reviewed and approved by the City. The developer must provide adequate information for review of the pumping system to demonstrate its adequacy for the anticipated flows. OTHER COMMENTS: 1. The developer will be required to grant the city conservation easements in various locations throughout the development. The areas being considered for these easements include the heavily wooded slope near the south east portion of the site as well as all shoreland and wetland areas. The extent of the conservation easements will be reviewed during final plan review with consideration given to drainage, maintenance and lake access concerns. Once the extent of these easements has been determined, the developer will be required to provide legal descriptions for each lot for recording. In order to accommodate the installation of trails or stairs to access the lake, and lakeshore use areas (discussed in the next items), it may be necessary to provide individual conservation easement descriptions for each lakeshore lot. Discussion is also necessary to determine what type of permanent delineation of the conservation easements is . . 2. . . desired. The City also reserves the right to require additional conservation easements during final review of the PUD. Where possible, all stairs or paths to access the lakeshore areas of riparian lots must be on common lot lines, with the use of the stairs shared by the adjacent lots. In addition, consideration should be given to requiring the properties sharing the stairs/paths sharing a common dock. Restrictions regarding the size of the docks, the number of docking spaces and the number of docked watercraft per house could also be considered. These restrictions will be finalized during final plan review and will be incorporated into the conservation easements and the PUD agreement. 3. Consideration should be given to limiting the amount of lakeshore space maintained for recreational use on each lot. A maximum of limit of 500 square feet adjacent to the docks could be considered. Impacts of these areas on the wetlands adjacent to the lake should also be considered. As with other lakeshore restrictions, this issue will be resolved during plan review and will be incorporated into the PUD agreement and the conservation easements. The City reserves the right to revise the area impacted for shoreland use during final PUD review. 4. The operators of the THC must be provided with a roadway easement to insure continued access to their facility. This easement must be secured, and a recorded copy provided to the City prior to approval of the final plat. Another option to a separate easement with THC would be for the city to have a drainage, utility and roadway easement over the main roadway. 5. The developer must provide a structural analysis, performed by a professional engineer specializing in structures, for the existing bridge to the peninsula to determine if it is adequate to handle the anticipated loading. The bridge must be strong enough to support all the City emergency response vehicles. 6. The developer should indicate how lakeshore property owners will launch their boats onto Sweeney Lake. 7. Prior to final approval of the development, an extensive construction staging and phasing plan must be submitted for all aspects of the project. This plan must include utility and roadway access to the THC as well as the site grading and erosion control. 8. The developer must provide information regarding the proposed maintenance of yards and common areas. A provision should be made for the use of low or no phosphorus fertilizers throughout the development. . 9. The developer has indicated that a reforestation and maintenance plan will be prepared for this development. This. plan must be submitted for review and comment as part of the final plan review. 10. Additional information must be provided regarding the proposed native wildflower plantings throughout the development, and specifically on the City water reservoir site to the east. Specific information regarding the species and future maintenance of the plantings will be needed, and discussion will have to occur regarding who will assume responsibility for the maintenance. 11. An overall landscaping plan for the PUD must be submitted as part of the final review. This must include detail of landscaping in all common areas, cul-de-sac islands, half circles and on the adjacent THC property. 12. The. City ref servpeus Dthe rdight to have specializeTdhcodnsultal nts re~Iilebw . portions 0 the . an construction plans. e eve oper wle responsible for any costs incurred as part of this review. SUMMARY: The proposed Hidden Lakes Planned Unit Development is satisfactory in concept from an engineering standpoint. However, staff has outlined several concerns that need to be addressed as part of the planning and review process. The developer .should provide the information necessary to properly address the issues outlined in this memo. The required plans and submittals required for review during the PUD process include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan 2. Location plan for private utilities 3. Final Grading Plan 4. Final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 5. Ground Water Monitoring Plan for peninsula 6. Storm water quality and quantity calculations 7. Hydrology analysis of Wirth Park wetland 8. Individual Custom Grading Plans at time building permit application. . 9. Individual Erosion Control Plan at the time of building permit application 10. Construction Phasing Plans 11. Construction Plans and Specifications for public utilities 12. Lift station (sanitary and storm) plans and specifications 13. Structural analysis of bridge 14. Forestry Plan 15. Site Landscaping Plan 16. Wetland Conservation Act Sequencing analysis 17. Water distribution system analysis 18. Lawn Maintenance Plan 19. Legal descriptions for conservation easements 20. Boat launch location 21. Planting and Maintenance of wildflower plantings Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this issue. c: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections . . GOLDEN VALLEY PARK & RECREATION 200 Brookview Parkway Golden Valley, MN 55426-1364 512-2345 . DATE: February 19, 1997 ,..- .......--..-...' TO: Mark Grimes FROM: Rick Jacobson RE: Open Space & Recreation Commission Recommendation on Hidden Lakes Development The Open Space and Recreation Commission had their meeting on Monday, February 17th, at which time they addressed the issue of the Hidden Lakes development. A presentation was made by the developer with questions and discussion following.. The Commission decided to reiterate their feelings expressed in the April, 1996, meeting at which time a motion was passed regarding park land dedication at this site. A slight change was made at the meeting on Monday night to the . wording of that motion. A motion passed Monday that reads as follows: A motion was made by Chuck Cahill and seconded by Tom Zins to request that the Council for- ward to the developer of the Hidden Lake area the following list of recommendations for the site: lake front park, picnic area, fishing pier, carry-on boat access, trail to hook up with the Hennepin County trail, a small playground, and adequate parking, using up to the maximum amount of land allowed by the city ordinance for park land dedication. The motion was passed unani- mously. . r ,a' r.. . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 2, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Key Issues for Consideration in Review of Hidden Lakes PUD The staff has developed the following list of key issues for the Hidden Lakes Development: 1. Peninsula Development: The Planning Commission recommended that there be fewer lots on the peninsula than the ten lots proposed by the developer. No specific reduction was suggested. On April 30th, the developer submitted a revised plan for the peninsula which reduces the number of lots on the peninsula from ten to eight. The developer discovered an error on the previous peninsula plan which failed to indicate the ordinary high water level (OHWL) in its proper location. The developer hired a new surveyor to field survey the peninsula and place the OHWL correctly. The result of that survey requires a reduction of two lots on the developers plans. The staff has consistently stated that all lots on the peninsula must meet the minimum requirements for setbacks in the shoreland impact area (50 ft. for roads or driveways and 75 ft. for structures). 2. Park Dedicatic;>n: The developer has indicated that they prefer to make a cash dedication for park and open space rather than dedicating land in the development for such uses. The preliminary plans indicate no pUblic land dedication. The Planning Commission and the Open Space and Recreation Commission have both recommended that there be a public dedication of park or open space in the Hidden Lakes development. The City's Comprehensive Plan also indicates that there should be public access to SweeneylTwin Lakes when this property is developed. The developer is proposing to give the City an easement over a walk/bike path that will run parallel with the main private road. This would provide a public trail from Golden Valley Rd. to Wirth Park. This trail would be open to the public at all times. 3. Protection of Slopes, Wetlands, Shorelandsand other Sensitive Areas: As part of the development.approval process, the staff is recommending that there be conservation easements along all shoreland areas and bluffs. , .'" ,r..... - ""'T These easements permits only minimal development and disruption of e natural systems in these areas. These protections will be done both by easement and then agreed to by the future homeowners through the restrictive covenants on all property in the development 4. Engineering Concerns: Assistant City Engineer Jeff Oliver has put together an extensive memo regarding engineering issues that must be addressed prior to general plan approval by the City Council. These issues range from concerns regarding utility installation, neighborhood access, emergency vehicle access, storm water management, access and use of the lakes, tree preservation, grading of the site, erosion control, and individual lot development. These are matters that must be carefully reviewed by the City staff to insure that the interests of the City of Golden Valley are protected and the future development is of high quality. 5. Landfill: It is known that there was construction debris placed in the middle of the site in the late 1960's and early 1970's. This past winter, Hidden Lakes began to prepare this landfill area for development by doing dynamic compaction. (Dropping a 15 ton concrete block from a crane to compact the soil.) The City issued a permit for this work. There has been claims. that the former hospital used the site for a medical waste or hazardous substance dump. This has not been verified. On April 30th the City received a copy of a letter sent to Robert Schmidt of Hidden Lakes Development from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that the Hidden Lal<es site is a e. potential source of the release of a hazardous substance. The MPCA is asking Hidden Lakes to "consider participating in the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program to further investigate the source, magnitude and extent of the release, and conduct any necessary cleanup related to the historical dumping activity at the Site". 6. Affordable Housing: The Planning Commission's recommendation included a suggestion that some affordable housing be built on the site to help the City meet its Livable Communities goals. 7. Traffic: This development, as would any development of the site, will increase the number of trips on Golden Valley Rd. The low density development proposed by Hidden Lakes will generate about 1,500 to 1,700 trips per day. 8. Boating limitations on Twin Lake: Staff has suggested that only non- power boats be allowed on Twin.Lake, with the only exception being small electric motors. The City Council has the right to make such a restriction. The staff is not suggesting any such restriction on boats in Sweeney Lake. e 2 . , . !..)t.::,. ,fl_ " ."'4: '" . . . ,- MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 15, 1997 William S. Joynes, City Manager Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Public Hearing -- Consider Ordinance Approving the General Plan of Development for Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Hidden Lakes Development has submitted its application for the General Plan of Development for PUD No. 74. Staff has reviewed the information submitted with the application (plans and reports) and the information was determined to meet the requirements for the General Plan as outlined in the PUD section of the Zoning Code. The information also fulfilled the conditions and considerations that the City Council placed on the approval of the Preliminary Design Plan. At the June 19, 1997 special meeting of the City Council, the Council approved a motion giving approval to the Preliminary Design Plan for PUD No. 74. The approval of the Preliminary Design Plan was subject to nine (9) conditions and considerations. I am attaching a copy of the minutes of that meeting which lists the conditions. Condition No.9 relates totally to the development of the peninsula and uflder what conditions the developer may amend the PUD to allow for its development in the future. The other eight conditions' relate to the development of the rest of the area which is covered in this General Plan application. In this memo, staffwill go over the nine conditions given to the approval of the Preliminary Design Plan by the City Council and address how those conditions have been handled. This staff memo will also refer to other reports, primarily the memo from Jeff Oliver, Assistant City Engineer, dated October 16, 1997 (attached). The nine conditions and comments are as follows: 1. The Council supports the Hidden lakes Development in general in that it appears to meet the requirements of the City's Residential Zoning District -- The proposed development consists of 141 housing units. There are 32 single family homes (including the one single family home on the peninsula), 60 villa homes (detached housing units on smaller lots), 62 twin home townhome units, and two carriage house units (single family homes that are more vertical in nature). As indicated on the site plan, there is space for the construction of additional carriage houses on Outlot M along the east side of the site. When the developer chooses to construct carriage homes or other types of housing on this outlot, the PUD will have to be amended. The overall density of the development is around two units per acre which is the same or lower than most single family developments. ,- . .t 1. i. :' . This development does include all or portions of three institutional uses. The THC Hospital is located wholly within the PUD. The PUD will allow for its continued use and operation. Access to the Hospital will be over the main north/south road from Golden Valley Road (Hidden lakes Parkway). THC is an active participant in this PUD and is in favor for the reuse of the site for residential uses. The Courage Center has a portion of its parking lot in the PUD. The new access road from Golden Valley Road will enhance the access into the Courage Center. As part of the redevelopment, a new ring road will be constructed to access the Courage Center parking lot. The access road from Golden Valley Road is the only access to the Courage Center parking lot. The Courage Center has agreed to the changes to the PUD as requested by Hidden lakes. The Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology has a small portion of its parking lot in the PUD. Access to this parking lot is from both Golden Valley Road and the new Hidden lakes Parkway. 2.. Affordable housing is not appropriate in this development -- The General Plan calls for no affordable housing. 3. The Engineering considerations set out in the memo from Assistant City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated February 13, 1997 are incorporated as conditions of approval - The Engineering memo was the primary guide for staff during the review of the General Plan. The staff went through this memo in great detail with the developer in order to determine that the issues raised were addressed. Assistant Engineer Oliver has written a detailed memo to me dated October 16, 1997 which gives staff response to the General Plan. The memo is divided into sections to address the major categories such as streets, storm sewer and drainage, easements, utilities, recreational facilities, water quality, grading, trees, landscaping and recommendations. The memo states that the engineering staff recommends approval of the General Plan subject to certain conditions. Where appropriate, these conditions will become part of the PUD permit. 4. Considerations raised in the memo from Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections, dated May 23,1997, are incorporated as conditions ofthis approval -- These issues have been satisfactorily addressed in the General Plan. (Refer to the October 16, 1997 Engineering memo regarding these issues related to access, assigning of addresses, and fire protection for certain housing units.) 5. Considerations raised in the March 5, 1997 letter from Hennepin Co. Dept. of Public Works covering the access road are incorporated as conditions of this approval - As indicated in the October Engineering memo, Hennepin County is satisfied with the layout and connection to Golden Valley Road. 6. The Declarations, Covenants and related documents must be revised to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney as a condition of this approval -- The City Attorney has reviewed the Covenant documents and finds them acceptable with some minor alterations. The Master Declaration has some restrictions that require City Council approval prior to the Homeowner's Association making certain changes. If City approval is required, it related to issues where the City has a public interest, such as utilities, access and recreational easements. . . 2 1 -'. . . .~ . According to the City Attorney, the Declarations have been well written by a professional, who is knowledgeable in the field. It provides for a. Master Association whose members are several homeowner associations which are created for the different housing types. The Master Association is responsible for certain common functions such as roads while each of the "villages" (homeowner associations) would undertake the remaining common functions. Both type of associations have the right to assess members for maintenance and other costs. The village associations would be responsible for reviewing and approving any building addition plans in the village. This assures a certain quality and continuity in the development. These Declarations and Covenants must be filed with the County prior to or with the final plat. Certain minor issues remain to be drafted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. The PUD permit would include a condition that the all Association documents must be completed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and prior to final plat approval. The City Attorney is also drafting a development agreement that will act as a binding contract between the City and developer to ensure that the developer completes all obligations agreed to during the approval process. The PUD permit will require execution of the development agreement before approval of the final plat. The development agreement would include cash or other securities to ensure performance by the developer of various obligations including the installation of utilities, private roads, public trails, etc. 7. Canoes are the only watercraft that will be permitted on Twin Lake-- Hidden Lakes has agreed to this restrictions. The staff is suggesting that the type of watercraft be expanded to includ~ paddle boats, kayaks, sailboats under 12 feet in length, and small fishing boats under 14 feet in length. 8. The Council supports some type of public access on any or all the lakes adjacent to or incorporated in the PUD -- The Hidden Lakes development would include a public access on Sweeney Lake for the launch and recovery of canoes, kayaks, and similar oar and paddle-powered watercraft, and sailboards not over 12 feet in length. A parking lot for six autos would be provided next to the launch. This launch area would be owned by Hidden Lakes but the City would have an easement over it for public use. The City would regulate its use. Hidden Lakes would landscape the area and maintain the area. Final details for this launch area are now under design. Adjacent to this non-motorized public launch would be the private boat ramp for-the riparian lakeshore owners in the development. The boat ramp would be controlled by the Association and be for the use of those owning property with lakeshore. This boat ramp would only be accessible through the Associations; in other words, boats will only be launched by appointment. These boats may be motorized. There would be no launch area provided for Twin Lake. However, those launching a canoe or other small boats can gain access to Twin Lake. Hidden Lakes would allow persons to portage their boats over the bridge between the mainland and the peninsula. In order to prevent motor boats being used in Twin Lake, staff will be bringing to the City Council a request from the City to . . 3 , . . the Department of Natural Resources requesting that Twin Lake be designated a non-motorized lake. 9. The developer has agreed to remove the peninsula portion of the project from the first phase of the development -- Hidden Lakes would not be doing any development on the peninsula. The peninsula would be platted as an outlot. The existing house would remain and may be occupied. The bridge to the peninsula would remain lias is" until there is peninsula development. The road to the peninsula bridge would be improved as shown on the development plans. The public would be able to use the road down to the peninsula bridge. As indicated in the approval of the Preliminary Design Plan, development of the peninsula may only occur under certain conditions including the completion of all infrastructure for Phase 1 and the completion of a specified number of single family homes and townhomes. These requirements will be made a part of the PUD Permit. . There are several other issues that staff would like to highlight. Some of these issues may be addressed in the October Engineering memo. 1. Park Dedication - The Council directed that Hidden Lakes should provide the City with certain recreational facilities to the general public. In addition to the boat launch area adjacent to the concierge building, the developer is providing the City with a 15-foot wide trail easement from Golden Valley Road on the north to Wirth Park on the south. This trail would be hard surfaced. It would be built and maintained by Hidden Lakes. Staff is recommending that the trail be 8 feet wide in order to adequately accommodate bikes, walkers, runners, rollerbladers, wheelchairs and other non-motorized wheeled vehicles. Only the City would have the right to restrict its use. However, the Homeowner Associations can make suggestions about its use. Staff. is recommending that a sign be posted at either end of the trail stating the trail is open to the public. The easement for a non-motorized boat launch, with parking, and the trail easement through the site are the required park dedication. These are significant benefits to the City because they provide access to the City's most significant lake and the trail would provide a connection to the regional trail system. 2. Final Plat -- The final plat of the development is currently being reviewed by Hennepin County. The plat cannot be put on a City Council agenda until after it is reviewed by the County and all necessary changes are made to satisfy the County and City. The,developer anticipates that the County review will be completed within the next week or so in order that it can.be put on the November 4, 1997 City Council agenda. A PUD applicant has up to six months to submit a final plat after the General Plan ordinance is approved. City staff does not anticipate any problems with the final plat. 3. PUD Permit -- A PUD permit must be approved by the City Council after the General Plan is approved. This permit may be approved at the same meeting the General Plan ordinance is approved or at a subsequent meeting. Staff will be developing the PUD permit in order that it may be considered by the City Council at the November 4, 1997 meeting. Due to the complexity of this development, and the desire by the developer to have the General Plan . 4 . approved by October 21, it was impossible for staff to prepare all the necessary information for the General Plan and the PUD permit by the by the October 21 meeting. This should not cause a hardship for the developer because no building construction may begin until after the final plat is approved by the City Council. 4. Development Agreement -- As stated above, the City Attorney is preparing a development agreement for this site. The development agreement must be approved by the City Council. This agreement is also scheduled to go before the City Council at its November 4 meeting. . 5. Entry and Concierge Building -- As indicated on the site plan and landscape plan, there would be significant improvements to the entry point to the site on Golden Valley Road. These improvements would benefit the City, the housing development, Courage Center, the Clinic and the THC Hospital. The improvements to the entry off of Golden Valley Road would be funded totally by Hidden Lakes. Hennepin County has already given its approval to the connection of the entry road to Golden Valley Road (Co. Rd. 66). The site plan shows the location of the concierge building near the south bank of Basset Creek. The building would be located in between the north and South lane of the entry road. There would be parking for the single employee that would work in the building and space for a car to pull off the road to utilize services offered by the concierge. These services .are exclusively for the residents of Hidden.Lakes and may include a drop-off service for dry cleaning, shopping services, information and morning coffee. The building would not include meeting rooms for the development. (See Hidden Lakes Project Summary for full concierge description.) There has been some concern about the location of the concierge building and what kind of image it creates, that being a gated community. Staff will recommend that the PUD permit includes a provision that a sign be placed at either end of the public trail through the development that states the trail is open to the public 24 hours a day. Staff believes there is an advantage to the location of the concierge building in the middle of the roadway. The building would have a traffic calming effect for drivers entering the site from Golden Valley Road due to the use of paver bricks and the narrow width of the road. This is important in this area due to the grade off Golden Valley Road and the pedestrian and wheelchair traffic in the area. 6. Future building additions to existing homes in the development -- The site plans indicate that there is a specific building envelope for each of the lots. Construction of homes, additions and structures may only occur within the envelope. The City will be responsible for issuing building permits. However, all construction shall be done in the building envelope. The homeowners associations are responsible for approving all building plans in order to ensure that the plans meet the requirements of the homeowners associations. If a homeowner would like to build outside the building envelope, the PUD would have to be amended. This is a time-consuming and cumbersome process. It is hoped that this would never have to be done. . . 5 . . . 7. Status of Pollution Control Agency (PCA) review of medical waste dump on site -- The developer has submitted information to the PCA regarding the alleged dumping of medical waste on the south end of the site. Staff has received a draft report from the developer's consultant indicating that the consultant believes that the PCA will require no action to be taken. Prior to construction in the area of concern, the developer will have to receive all necessary approvals from the PCA to begin construction. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance giving approval to the General Plan of Development for Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 with certain conditions. The proposed General Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Design Plan approved by the City Council in June, 1997. The General Plan addresses each of the conditions and considerations made part of the Preliminary Design Plan approval. Staff believes that this development would be of high quality on one of the prime housing locations in the City. Staff also believes that the developer has acted in good faith over the past several months to provide the needed information in order for this project to go forward. The approval of the General Plan of Development is done by Ordinance. The attached ordinance has several conditions attached. Each of the requirements in the conditions are ones that are now being addressed by the staff and developer and should soon be completed. Many must be completed prior to final plat approval. These conditions are as follows: . . 1. The engineering considerations and requirements found in the memo from Assistant City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated October 16, 1997 be incorporated as part of the General Plan approval and be made a part of the PUD permit. 2. A development agreement between the City and developer be prepared by the City Attorney in order to ensure that the developer completes all obligations agreed to during the approval process. This agreement must be signed by the City and developer prior to final plat approval. 3. The Declarations and Covenants must be revised to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney. These matters must be filed with the County prior to or with the final plat. . 4. Development of the peninsula (Phase II) may begin only after the developer has met the conditions found in Condition No.9 in the approval of the Preliminary De~ign Plan for P.U.D. No. 74. These conditions will become a part of the PUD permit. (See City Council minutes from June 19, 1997 meeting.) Any development on the peninsula will require an amended PUD. 5. A PUD permit will be prepared for City Council approval which includes the considerations and requirements found in this memo, the October 16, 1997 Engineering memo, and other information attached or referred to in the October 16, 1997 Engineering memo. This PUD permit shall be approved prior to the approval of the final plat. 6. The final plat be prepared and submitted for City Council approval within 6 months approval of the General Plan of Development. 6 . Attachments:" Minutes of the City Council Special Meeting dated June 19, 1997 Memo from Jeff Oliver, As~~. City Engineer, dated October 16, 1997 and attachments Hidden Lakes Project Summary prepared by Hidden Lakes Development (no date) Forest Management Plan for Hidden Lakes prepared by Kund~ Co., Inc. Grounds Maintenance Specifications -- Hidden Lakes Community Association -- Chemical Weed and Feed Program Grounds maintenance Specifications -- Hidden Lakes Community Association -- Summer Grounds Maintenance Letter to Omega Management From Trugreen-Chemlawn dated November 21, 1996 Ordinance No. 171 Oversized plans (enclosed separately) Landscape Plans (11x17 - enclosed separately) Color Site Plan of the Concierge House (11 x17 sheet - enclosed separately Housing Layout Plans (11x17 - enclosed separately) Planting Guide (1 sheet - enclosed separately) . . 7 . .. . . . Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Golden Valley Road in said City on June 19, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were' present: Anderson, Johnson, LeSuer, Micks and Russell. Also present were: Jeanne Andre, Assistant to the City Manager; Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works; Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary. Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development Mayor Anderson introduced the agenda item and reviewed the order of the agenda. Allen Barnard reviewed and explained the proposed motion for Council consideration and answered questions regarding the process. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, answered questions from the Council regarding the site. MOVED by Micks, seconded by Johnson and motion carried to amend the action previously taken on June 2, 1997 regarding the preliminary design plan for PUD #74, Hidden Lakes Development, by hereby approving the preliminary design plan for PUD #74, subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The Council supports the Hidden Lakes Development in general in that it appears to meet the requirements of the City's residential zoning district. 2. Affordable housing is not appropriate in this development. 3. The engineering considerations set out in the memo from Assistant City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated February 13, 1997 are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 4. The considerations raised in the memo from City Director of Inspections Mark Kuhnly, dated May 23, 1997, are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 5. The considerations raised in the March 5, 1997 letter. from Hennepin County Department of Public Works covering the access road are incorporated as conditions of this approval. 6. The Declarations, Covenants and related documents must be revised to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney as a condition of this approval. 7. Canoes are the only watercraft that will be permitted on Twin Lake. ... . . . Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Page 2 Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden lakes Development - Continued 8. The Council supports some sort of public access on any or all of the lakes adjacent to or incorporated in the PUD. 9. The developer has agreed to remove the peninsula portion of the Hidden lakes project from the initial state of development. The peninsula area will be designated as a future phase of the PUD and in the interim be platted as a single residential lot related to the existing house. Final approval an construction of the peninsula phase will not be sought by the developer, as he has agreed, until the following have been completed: a. All environmental and other information related to development on the peninsula has been assembled and provided to the City. b. All due diligence and all care has been taken to address the issues regarding development on the peninsula including environmental issues. c. All major grading and infrastructure on Phase I has been successfully completed and the developer has successfully complied with all related conditions of approval and requirements of environmental sensitivity on Phase I. d. Home building has been successfully completed on at least five lakeshore lots on Phase I. For purposes of this subparagraph "home building" is defined as completion of all planned site improvements, building construction and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure. e. Ten of the townhomes have been issued Certificates of Occupancy. Both the developer and the City acknowledge that great care needs to be taken determini~g the ultimate development pattern on the peninsula as it is an environmentally sensitive portion of the site and it must be protected during construction and in its ongoing maintenance and development. . . " ./.. . Special Meeting of the City Council June 19, 1997 Page 3 Continued Council Discussion .. Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development - Continued The developer shall provide additional information to the City to inform its decisions regarding the peninsula and to work with the City to satisfy any reasonable conditions of approval related to the peninsula. Ultimate development plans for the peninsula will be shaped by City decisions about park dedication, which may include a trail on a portion of the peninsula, as well as the relative weight that the City chooses to place on specific environmental features, characteristics, or objectives. For instance, if the City decides to protect the portion of the peninsula that is close to the elevation that would meet the definition of a bluff, as though it were a bluff, the developer agrees to cooperate. However, it is understood that in agreeing to provide additional information and honor requests for greater. protection and sensitivity to chosen features, the developer has not relinquished any development rights to the land on the peninsula. . When plans are submitted to gain approval of Phase II of the Hidden Lakes PUD (the peninsula) the developer agrees that the City may use the following criteria to determine the adequacy of those plans: a. All the lots to be created shall exceed the minimum lot size and the average lot size shall be twice the minimum lot size established by the DNR in shoreland impact areas. b. The 50 foot setback requirement, per section 11.65 (Shoreland Management) of the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance, for the private roadway serving the future peninsula lots will be maintained except where it is acknowledged that it is impractical and' unfeasible to do so at the bridge and the roadway immediately past the bridge that currently exists. c. Hidden Lakes shall retain the services of a qualified geohydrologist to verify the location and number of springs and seeps and all of these features shall be protected by inclusion within the designated "no impact zone". d. The City Engineer shall determine whether the lots to be created have adequate buildable area after all the necessary land has been provided to accommodate storm water improvements, environmental easements, restrictions on woodland clearing and all other performance standards contained in the Jeff Oliver memo dated February 13,1997. . Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - NO MICKS - YES RUSSELL - YES :I . . ~ . ~, . ... Special Meeting of the City Council June 19,1997 Page 4 Continued Council Discussion - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes Development - Continued Allen Barnard reviewed the process for the next stage in the develpment process. Adjournment MOVED by Russell, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanirnoulsy to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: . Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary . , Attachment / Genera1 P1an Review 16 1997" "Memo of October , .( . MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: OCTOBER 16, 1997 MARK GRIMES DIRECTOR OF PLANNIN~ DEVELOPMENT JEFF OLIVER, P.E. ,-,/W) ASSISTANT CITY S~l~EER GENERAL PLAN REVIEW FOR HIDDEN LAKES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: Engineering staff has completed a review of the plans submitted for the proposed Hidden Lakes Planned Unit Development. This proposed development is located south of Golden Valley Road, north and east of Theodore Wirth Park and east of Sweeney Lake. In order to make this review easier to follow, it has been broken down into segments. These segments each deal with one primary portion of the plans. . FINAL PLAT: The proposed final plat incorporates property that made up the Golden Valley Health Center PUD No. 45. This includes some property that is currently part of the Courage Center complex, the Minneapolis Neurology Clinic, and Transitional Health Care, as well as the former hospital site. Outlots A, B, C, D and E contain the roadway system within the proposed PUD. The proposed roadway system will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, so the. outlots will also be owned by the association. These outlots will also contain the majority of the utilities within the development. Therefore, in order for the City to maintain the utilities, these roadway outlots will be covered entirely by drainage and utility easements. Outlot K, located along the shoreline of Sweeney Lake just south of Bassett Creek, will be the site of the lake access. This outlot will also be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, but the City will hold easements across it in order to provide public access to the lakes. The developer must provide a legal description and easement to the City for review and comment. . The peninsula between Sweeney and Twin Lakes is being platted as Lot 1, Block 5. j The remaining outlots are preservation areas, common areas or reserved for . future development. The final plat includes drainage and utility easements over all of Sweeney and Twin Lakes. These easements extend upland from the lake to a point that covers any wetlands, the 100 year flood elevation or the Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Protection Area, which ever of these is . located the furthest from the lake. OTHER EASEMENTS: Because of its previous use, this site has several existing easements across it. These existing easements run in the favor of the City, the Courage Center, Transitional Health Care and Minnegasco. The two existing easements to the Courage Center are for ingress and egress, or access to their site. Because there are no proposed alignment changes to the roadway in the vicinity of the Courage Center, these easements do not need to change with this development There is currently an easement in favor of Transitional Health Care to provide access to their facility. In this case, the location of the existing roadway will . be changing, thus requiring that the easement be rewritten to cover the new street alignment. The developer has prepared a document that will release the existing access easement upon recording of the new document. The City attorney has reviewed this document and found it to be acceptable. There are also several easements across the development that are in favor of Minnegasco. These easements will no longer be needed because all of the utilities are to be located within the street outlots. In addition, these existing easements cross the site through many areas that will conflict with the new uses. Therefore, these Minnegasco easements must be released. The developer is in the process of working with Minnegasco to have the easements vacated, which must be completed prior to recording of the final plat. A letter from Minnegasco consenting to the release of these easements is attached to this review for reference. There are currently two easements across this property in favor of the City of Golden Valley. · The first easement is on the existing roadway for access to the City water reservoir located east of the site within Wirth Park and for trunk watermain. There will be no need for this easement fOllowing development because the appropriate outlots will be covered with . easements for the utility system. The City will need to vacate only the portion of this easement that lies within the Hidden Lakes PUD. . · The second easement runs across the extreme north end of the site and contains a trunk sanitary sewer that is now owned and maintained by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. Although the need is still present for this easement following development, it can be better met with the easements across the entire Outlot A as shown on the final plat. The developer must provide a legal description for the portion of the easement that is to be vacated. These existing easements must be vacated before the final plat can be recorded. Therefore, it is recommended that the City hold public hearings to vacate each of these easements at the same Council meeting that the final plat is considered. These hearings should be scheduled following consideration of the plat. Conservation Easements: . As discussed in the Concept Plan Review of the proposed PUD, the City will require conservation easements across some portions of the site. Conservation easements, which will run if favor of the City, will basically create "no touch" zones that must remain in a natural state. The clearing of trees or altering of existing vegetation in these areas will be prohibited. These conservation easements will be located in two areas: . On the wooded slope that is between Blocks 10 and 11. The easement will cover. the entire wodded portion of Outlot G, as well as the portions of the lots in Block 10 that will not be utilized for homes. . The second conservation easement area will be on the slope on the western edge of Block 6. These easements must be described around a ten foot wide corridor for the future homeowners to access their lake frontage, and to provide an area for lake shore usage. The lake shore usage area will be limited to the 30% of the shore land area that the DNR will allow to be improved. Homeowners within this block will be able to maintain the specified lakeshore for use, but they will not be allowed to place any permanent structures within the area. Conservation easements cannot be recorded on a final plat. Therefore, these easements must be recorded as separate documents for each property. The conservation easements across Block 10 and Outlot G must be prepared and recorded prior to approval of the final plat. . In order to allow the property owners who purchase the lots within Block 6 to select the area that they wish to improve on the lake shore, the conservation easements for this block must be prepared according to the above limitations and be recorded before a building permit is issued for each lot. In order to delineate these conservation easements for lawn maintenance . crews and future homeowners, the developer will be required to place monumentation for the easements. This monumentation can take the form of 4x4 posts with the words "Conservation Area" carved into them. There must be at least one. monument on each lot. An ideal. placement would be to place monuments on every other lot line. The concept plan review for the PUD discussed placing conservation. easements across the lakeshore areas on Block 4. A significant portion of this area will need to be cleared in order to construct the storm water ponding needed for flood management and nutrient and sediment removal. In addition, the developer had proposed a reforestation plan that will gradually replace the existing non-native tree species that have populated the area with native tree species. This plan has been reviewed by City staff and is discussed later in this report. Therefore, staff has determined that it would be appropriate to implement the reforestation plan within Block 4 rather than place conservation easements. As with Block 6 however, homeowners will only be allowed to "improve" 30 percent of their lakeshore for recreational use according to DNR regulations, and will not be allowed to construct any permanent structures within the shoreland area. . The developer will also be required to dedicate trailway easements over the . public portions of the trail syste.m across the site. This trail and the easement requirements will be discussed later in this review. STREETS: The street system within this development will be owned and maintained by the Hidden Lakes Homeowners Association. However, the streets must be built to a 7 ton standard according to the City of Golden Valley standards. Construction plans for the street system are currently being developed and will include a subcut in area of poor soils. Surmountable curb and gutter will be included in the residential areas with barrier curb placed along Hidden Lakes Parkway. As previously discussed, Hidden Lakes Parkway will be located within Outlot A This roadway will serve as the access point from Golden Valley Road into the development, into the Courage Center parking lots, to the Transitional Health Care facility, to the City water reservoir, and as a secondary access into the Minneapolis Neurology Clinic. Immediately south of Golden Valley Road, Hidden Lakes Parkway will be built as a divided roadway with one southbound lane and two northbound lanes. . South of the concierge building Hidden Lakes Parkway will be built as a 26 foot wide street with no parking allowed on either side. In order to allow the . Golden Valley Public Safety Department to enforce the parking restrictions, the no parking areas will be posted as fire lanes. The developer has submitted a signing plan meeting this requirement. All streets within the development will have a posted speed limit of 20 miles per hour. The developer should address how enforcement of this speed limit will occur. Island Drive will connect Hidden Lakes West to the peninsula. This roadway. will be constructed as a 20 foot wide street with no parking permitted. All other streets will be 26 feet wide with parking restricted to one side of the street. Hidden Lakes West and Hidden Lakes South are long roadways with only one street connection to Hidden Lakes Parkway. This minimal access is of concern for emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the developer will construct emergency vehicle access at the end of these roadways that will allow police and fire vehicles through a gate, but will not allow general traffic to use the access points. These accesses are shown near lot 20, Block 13 and Lot 5, Block 6. Details of the construction of these accesses, including the gates, will be determined during construction plan approval. . In order to minimize traffic backing out onto Hidden Lakes Parkway, all driveways from homes must be from the internal street system. Because Golden Valley Road is a County Road (CSAH 66), the plans for this area must be reviewed by the Hennepin C.ounty Public Works Department. A permit from the county to work within their right-of-way will be required, and a copy must be provided to the City when the permit is obtained. A review letter from the county, dated October 6, 1997, is attached to this review for reference. In general, the County is satisfied with the plans as proposed. One item that the county does have concern with is the developer's request to paintthe existing signal poles a decorative color. Because the county will not enter a maintenance agreement with private parties, an agreement with City would be required. This agreement would require that the City take responsibility for painting and maintaining these signal standards. The City does not wish to assume this responsibility. . The developer has proposed constructing decorative wing walls and parapets at the culvert where Hidden Lakes Parkway crosses Bassett Creek. Prior to construction of these features, a complete engineered set of construction plans must be submitted for review. A Department of Natural Resources permit to work in protected waters will also be required for this work. This permit must be obtained prior to beginning any work on this item. TRAIL SYSTEM: . As required as part of the Concept Plan approval, the developer will be required to construct a bituminous trail system across this site from Golden Valley Road to the south property line with Wirth Park. This trail will ultimately connect with the proposed metro wide trail system being considered to the south of the site. As shown on the plans, this trail is proposed to be built as at six feet in width. However, the trail will ultimately carry significant wheelchair traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and rollerbladers. Because of the potential make up of the trail traffic, and its ultimate connection through Wirth Park to the planned Hennepin County Parks trail, the proposed width is too narrow. Therefore, the trail will need to be constructed as an eight foot wide trail within a 15 foot wide easement. The trail easement cannot be shown on the final plat and must therefore be recorded as a separate document. The developer will be required to submit a legal description for this easement to the City for review and recording. This easement must be recorded prior to the recording of the final plat. The trail system must include pedestrian ramps which meet ADA . requirements at all locations where it crosses a concrete curb. In addition, painted crosswalks and appropriate warning signs for these crosswalks must also be provided. These items must be shown on the overalLsigning and street plans submitted as part of the PUD. As currently shown on the plans, trail users will need to walk out around the "islandsn at each intersection along Hidden Lakes Parkway. This situation will place those using the trail dangerously close to vehicles on the parkway with no physical separation from the traffic." In.order to provide a higher level of safety along the trail, revisions must be made. One option for consideration would be to push each island further back from the parkway to allow adequate space for the eight foot wide crosswalk and approximately four feet of separation between the crosswalk and the outer edge of the traffic lane. A second option would be to have the trail cross each of the islands. The developer will be responsible, through the homeowners association, to maintain the public trail described above. Additional trails will be constructed and maintained by the developer within the site. One of these trails will be located within Outlot E, and will proceed along Hidden Lakes North from the Parkway to the play area within the outlot. . A second trail will pass through Outlot J from the Parkway to Hidden Lakes West and Island Drive to provide access to the lakeshore area near the bridge to the peninsula. . The Inspection Department has expressed concerns regarding the proposed address system within the development. Early discussions with the developer indicated that a "stand alone" address system was favored. However, a separate address system could cause confusion for emergency response vehicles. Therefore, the developer will be required to use an address system that is consistent with the block system currently used in the City, and that the street numbers must be posted in accordance with City Code. Theaddresses must be approved by the Building Official prior to the issuance of any building permits. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES: As required as part of the Concept Plan approval, the developer will be constructing several recreational facilities within the PUD. . A lake access will be provided to Sweeney Lake just south of Bassett Creek in Outlot K. This access will be open to the public for canoes and other car top boats, with six parking spaces provided. A separate boat ramp will also be constructed that will allow riparian homeowners to launch their boats. The parking lot at this access will be paved and have concrete curb and gutter installed. The curb and gutter will direct storm water runoff into the storm sewer system and through ponding for nutrient and sediment removal prior to discharge into Bassett Creek. Access to the boat launch portion of the access will be monitored by the homeowners association through the adjacent concierge building. The construction of this lake access may also require a DNR work in Protected Waters permit. The developer should submit a set of plans to the DNR area hydrologist for review and comment. The developer will also construct a private neighborhood park within Outlot E, in the center island of Hidden Lakes North. This park will include landscaping amenities and a play area for children. Details of this park are included in the landscaping plan. . . SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN: The proposed development site is virtually surrounded by trunk sanitary sewer and watermain facilities. Therefore, no additional construction of trunk facilities will be required to provide services to the Hidden Lakes PUD. The proposed lateral sewer and water improvements are to be owned and maintained by the City of Golden Valley. The developer has submitted construction plans and specifications for these utilities to the City for review. Once approved, the City will provide inspections of the construction to insure that they are built to the appropriate standards. The developer will be responsible for all inspection costs incurred by the City. All the sanitary sewer flow from the development will flow north into the 36 inch MCES interceptor sewer that crosses the north end ofthe site. The collection system shown on the Overall Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan is acceptable to the City as proposed. The developer has proposed connecting the new sanitary sewer system to an existing 12 inch concrete sanitary sewer that passes beneath Bassett Creek . and discharges into the MCES interceptor. This connection wiJl essentially make the existing pipe part of the City sewer system. Because this existing main was privately owned and maintained by the previous site occupants, the City did not have any indication as to what physical condition the concrete pipe was in. In order to determine if the sewer was in acceptable condition for the City to assume maintenance responsibilities, the Public Works Department performed a television inspection of the pipe. This inspection revealed that there was a significant sag in the northern-most section of pipe and there was indication of ground water infiltration into the sewer over its entire length. Based upon these inspection results, the developer will be required to replace the north 90 feet of this line to eliminate the sag. The developer will also be required to rehabilitate the remaining sewer line to eliminate theinfiltration, including replacement of the southern most manhole. Plans for this sewer work are being reviewed as part of the construction plans. There is an existing sanitary sewer service from the MCES interceptor that extends southward across the site to the old hospital site. In order to eliminate infiltration problems on this service, the developer will be required to disconnect this sewer service at the MCES pipe. The serviee will then need . to be removed to the extent possible. Any pipe, such as that beneath the Courage Center parking lot or the protected area on the north slope, that cannot be removed must be plugged on each end and filled with sand. The . ends of the remaining pipe will need to be located by survey and shown on the utility record drawings. As previously discussed, there are trunk watermains coming out of the reservoir bordering the entire eastern and southern boundaries of this development. The developer will connect the proposed water system to these trunk watermains in five locations. Based upon the utility plans submitted with the Concept Plan,staff had expressed concerns about water flows within the development. These concerns resulted in a requirement that the developer prepare a water system analysis for review by the City. During preparation of this system analysis several revisions were made. The model was reviewed by the City and its consulting engineer, Barr Engineering (copy of report attached for reference). The flow concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. . One concern with the water system that still remains is the possibility of pressure surges in homes closest to the reservoir due to the starting and stopping of the pumps. Following the construction of the watermains closest to the reservoir, the developer will be required to provide pressure monitoring on a new fire hydrant. Should this monitoring reveal a significant pressure variation, installation of surge protection will be required. The developer must agree to install any surge protection measures deemed necessary by ttie City. The final location of all valves, manholes, hydrants and other utility appurtenances will be determined during construction plan review. The City will be responsible for maintenance and repair of the sewer and water systems on site. This responsibility will include backfilling and compaction of needed utility trenches, but will not include pavement or repair of landscaping reasonably damaged as part of this maintenance. Replacement of these items will be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. . The plans call for connecting the proposed water system to the private watermain on the THC site. This existing THC watermain will not become part of the public system following the interconnection. Each home within the development will have an irrigation system installed. These systems will be part of the residential metering and plumbing system. . Irrigation systems will also be provided for all the common areas that will be maintained by the homeowners association. As of this time there has been no information submitted regarding the services and metering of these irrigation systems. This information must be provided by the developer as soon as possible for review and comment by staff. . Because of the previous concerns expressed about emergency vehicle access, the Chief of Fire and Inspections has determined that internal fire suppression systems will be required in all the homes within Blocks 9.and 10. The developer will be required to submit an as-built set of utility plans to the City following construction. These as-builts must be submitted in a reproducible format and in a digital format compatible with the City AutoCad system. The developer has proposed the installation of a well near Pond 3to supplement the water level in this pond during times of low rainfall. Installation of this well must be in accordance with all local, state and federal laws concerning wells. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City. STORM WATER DRAINAGE: Storm water runoff within the proposed development flows three directions . into Bassett Creek and Sweeney/Twin Lake. A brief summary of the drainage in these areas is as follows: North Bassett Creek Drainaoe: The northern portion of the site, from Golden Valley Road south to the north portions of Blocks 4 and 8, drains towards Bassett Creek. Runoff from this area will be collected in a storm sewer system within the streets. This storm sewer flows toward the creek, then eastward into an existing pond on the Courage Center property. A lateral storm sewer will be extended into the lake access area to collect as much runoff as possible before it is discharged into Sweeney Lake. In order to make the proposed storm sewer and the existing pond on the Courage Center property part of the City system, dedication of drainage and utility easements will be required. The Courage Center has agreed to grant these easements (see attached October 3, 1997 letter), pending final location of this storm sewer. This easement must be recorded along with the final plat. South Bassett Creek: The sOuthern portion of the site currently drains overland into Wirth Park. . Most of this existing flow ultimately ends up in the wetland within the park. This wetland does not have a piped outlet and overflows across fairways, . eventually flowing into Bassett Creek. . The existing drainage pattern will generally be maintained following development. However, all runoff from this drainage area will be collected by the proposed storm sewer system, which flows into Pond 3. The primary discharge from Pond 3 is south into Wirth Park. During the PUD Concept Plan review, staff expressed concerns regarding the hydrology of this drainage area. In particular, even though Pond 3 would restrict the rate at which water flowed into Wirth Park, the overall volume of water would actually increase due to the development. This increased volume of water could result in a flooding of the receiving wetland, with. possible impacts on the adjacent trees. Part of the Concept Plan approval was thatthe developer perform a hydrology study of this wetland. . The developer's engineer has prepared and submitted the required hydrology report for this drainage area. This report has been review by City staff, the Minneapolis Park Board ( a copy of their October 7, 1997 review is attached for reference) and Barr Engineering on behalf of the City and the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. As part of the hydrology study the developer has proposed that the primary outfall from Pond 3 continue to be south into Wirth Park. However, once the pond reaches a set elevation during a storm, it will begin overflowing westward through a secondary outlet that eventually flows through Pond 2 and into Sweeney Lake. This system will limit the total volume of water flowing into Wirth Park. The Minneapolis Park Board has indicated that the proposed storm sewer system is acceptable to the board as it relates to runoff rate and volume. However, the developer will be required to obtain a storm drainage easement from the Park Board. This easement, which must be in favor of the City, must be obtained and recorded prior to City approval of the final plat. SweenevlTwin Lake Drainaoe Area: The majority of the proposed development site drains westward into Sweeney Lake. The only area of the development that will drain directly into Twin Lake is the rear yards and slopes of Block 6. All other storm water runoff is to be directed into the proposed storm sewer system and into either Pond 1 or 2. These ponds perform the runoff rate control as required. WATER QUALITY: . The protection of the water quality of Sweeney and Twin Lakes, as well as Bassett Creek is a primary concern for this proposed development. As such, extensive efforts have been made to treat the storm water runoff prior to discharge into these receiving waters. . The proposed storm sewer system will collect as much runoff as practical from . this site. Only rear yard areas adjacent to the boundaries of the plat will not be collected by the storm sewer system. Runoff from these uncollected areas will either infiltrate into the ground or flow through extensive vegetated areas where sediment and nutrients will be filtered out. ,', The plans include collection of storm water runoff from the existing THC parking lot. Once collected, this runoff will be directed into Pond 3 for nutrient removal. The runoff from the THC parking lot currently receives no treatment prior to discharge to the receiving waters. The proposed storm sewer within the THC parking lot will not become part of the public drainage system following construction. All new storm sewer west of the property line must be maintained by THC. The proposed storm sewer system contains a series of sump manhole and catch basin structures to provide presedimentation of runoff. Many of these sump structures will be oversiz~d to collect more sediment than the standard sized manholes. Maintenance of the sump structures, including removal of accumulated sediment, will be performed by the City of Golden Valley. Ponds 1, 2 and 3 are designed according the standards of the Bassett Creek . Water Management Commission (BCWMC) for nutrient and sediment '. removal. The ponding calculations have been reviewed by the City and BCWMC and are acceptable as' proposed. The Concept Plan for the PUD required that Pond 2 be sized to accommodate the water quality requirements for potential development on the peninsula. This plan does not provide for this drainage area in the ponds for quantity or quality. Therefore, should the peninsula be developed in any manner, all storm water management requirements must be met on the peninsula. The northern portion of the site will drain into the existing pond on the Courage Center property as discussed above. When this pond was constructed it was designed primarily as a flood control and aesthetic pond. Therefore, it is unclear if there is sufficient pond volume to meet the BCWMC standards for nutrient and sediment removal. The developer is in the process of determining the pond volume to check against the water quality standards. If these standards are not met, additional dredging of the pond, or additional presedimentation and other best management practices, will be required. This development is subject to review and comment by the BCWMC. The commission will consider this project at its October meeting. Gradingother . . that that already approved by the City and BCWMC can not begin until the Commission permit is issued. Another important factor in water quality is the use and misuse of fertilizers containing phosphorus. Because of this, the City had requested that the developer submit a lawn and landscape maintenance plan for the project. The maintenance of the lawns will be performed by the homeowners association, through a maintenance company. The plan indicates that the fertilizer used for the turf areas will not contain any phosphorus. In addition, all lawn clippings and leaves will be removed from the site and the streets and trails will be swept on an as needed basis. These measures will insure that decaying vegetation will not reach any waterbodies. This lawn maintenance plan satisfies the concerns raised by the Minneapolis Park Board in their review. Maintenance of the storm water system, including the ponds, will be the responsibility ofthe City. SITE GRADING: . The City Council and the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission have previously approved an interim grading plan for Hidden Lakes. This early grading is in an effort to construct Golden Hills West during the fall of 1997. The completion of the street this fall will enable the developer to provide access to Transitional Health Care while the rest of the development is constructed. The overall grading plan as proposed is acceptable to staff. The plan provides for positive drainage throughout the development, with adequate storm sewer in rear yards and the roadways. There is one area within the project that will be graded with a slope in excess of a 3: 1. This area is on the north side of Island Drive as it approaches the bridge near Twin Lake. This slope is proposed in orderto preserve a stand of existing trees north of the roadway. Preservation of this stand of trees is seen as desirable because many of the other trees in this area will be removed in order to construct the storm water ponds previously discussed. This steep slope will be vegetated with ground cover plantings to stabilize the slope. Installation of an erosion control blanket over this slope will also be required immediately following the completion of grading. . The developer is proposing a series of retaining walls throughout the site in order to eliminate steep slopes. Areas where these walls are proposed include along the south property line with Wirth Park, and on the north end of Block 8 near the intersection of Hidden Lakes West and Parkway. Smaller walls are also proposed across the site in order to preserve trees and limit grading. . The plans submitted indicate that all of Hidden Lakes Parkway is to be reconstructed. As previously discussed, the portion of the parkway immediately south of Golden Valley Road carries a significant volume of traffic. Given that this street is also located on a fairly steep slope, access into the site will be difficult during construction. Therefore, the grading and reconstruction of Hidden Lakes Parkway between Golden Valley Road and Hidden Lakes West should be limited so that traffic will be able to use the roadway at all times. This can most likely be accomplished by building half of the roadway at a time. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL: The developer has provided an interim erosion control plan that was implemented along with the early grading. This interim plan includes the construction of several temporary sediment basins, silt fence and other pertinent erosion control measures. As part of it's review and approval of the interim grading plan, the BCWMC . required that the erosion control measures be inspected on a daily basis. As such, the City is performing these inspections each day, and the Commission is inspecting the site on a weekly basis. The inspection schedule will remain in place throughout construction. The overall erosion control plan is acceptable as proposed. This plan incorporates a significant number of best management practices (BMPs ) for erosion and sediment control. Among these BMP's are: · silt fencing; · storm sewer inlet protection; · flotation silt curtain; · street/pavement sweeping; · gravel construction entrance; · wood fiber erosion control blanket; · temporary sediment basins; · temporary and permanent site vegetation; · pond outlet skimming structures; · staked haybales in swales. The developer mustagree to perform maintenance on these erosion control . measures as directed by the City or BCWMC. In addition, the developer must install additional measures deemed appropriate by the City. . The grading plan and the erosion control plan have been reviewed by Barr Engineering on behalf of the City of Golden Valley and the BCWMC. Comments and revisions requested by Barr have been incorporated into the plans. Erosion and sediment control must be of primary concern in this development well past the construction of utilities and streets. Typically, some of the most significant erosion damage can occur during the construction of homes. Therefore, an individual erosion control plan will be required for each building permit for which an application is submitted. These plans can be submitted as part of the site survey for each lot. The erosion control plans must include: . existing and proposed topography; . the location of all trees and other natural features; . the elevations at lot corners; . all drainage patterns, swales and grades; . all storm sewer on or adjacent to the lot; .. all drainage and utility easements. . the location of all proposed erosion control measures; . location of an individuallotgravel construction entrance; . location of all proposed preservation fencing. .' These individual erosion control plans will be reviewed as part of building permit review. Inspections of tbe erosion control measures will occur on a daily basis. TREES: As required as part of the PUD Concept Plan approval, the developer has submitted an inventory of all the existing trees six inches in diameter or larger. This plan identifies the tree size, species, relative quality and a designation as to the proposed status of the tree during development. . In general, the largest density of quality trees on site is being preserved. This stand contains mostly oak trees and is located on the slope between Block 10 (hilltop area) and Block 11. The homes on the hilltop area will be situated such that minimal impacts to the trees will occur during home construction. Each home will have a 20 foot area provided in the backyard so a walkout or deck can be constructed. Trees within this 20 foot area may be preserved if the specific conditions on the lot permit. The developer/builders will be required to include the location of all significant trees on each lot on the survey required when applying for a building permit. Inspections and Public Works staff will review these plans to determine if additional trees can be preserved. All trees on the wooded slope beyond the 20 foot backyard area will be within . the conservation easement discussed earlier in this review. These trees will be left in a natural state with no trimming or altering permitted, except in the case of trees found to be diseased by the City Forester. In addition, the grading plan r?en prepared to minimize the amount of grading needed within Block! ,-,rill permit the greatest number of trees to be preserved during mass grac "j c~( i1tility construction. The trees that ' remain in this area following gradint~.:ii evaluated on a lot by lot basis as bUilding permits are applied for. Measi, 'ich as varying the elevation of the home, shifting the homes on the lot, a(;;::. ',anging the location of the driveway will be applied as appropriate to preserve as many trees as possible. The trees on the slope up from Twin Lake within Block 6 will also be preserved. As with Block 10; this area will be covered by a conservation easement to preserve the existing physical features. Future homeowners will be allowed to use the lakeshore portion of their lot as previously discussed in this review. . Many of the large pine trees located on slope north of the old hospital building are also being preserved. The plans include the construction of several retaining walls in this area, as well as limiting the grading to the extent possible. . The largest area of tree removal on site will be upland from the lakes within Block 4. The removal of a significant number of trees is needed in order to construct the water quality ponds in this area. The tree inventory required as part of the PUD has identified 1742 trees with a diameter of six inches or greater within this phase of the PUD. Of the inventoried trees, atotal of 822 (47.2% of the total) trees will be preserved during site grading and utility construction. There are 697 trees (40% of total) that are being removed to perform site and home construction. Finally, there are 223 trees (12.8% of total) identified that must be removed in order to construct the required storm water/water quality ponds within Block 4. The remaining trees within the lakeshore portions of Block 4 will be preserved during mass grading. These trees consist mainly of boxelders, cottonwoods and other non-native trees, many of which appear to be in relatively poor condition. As such, the developer has proposed a reforestation plan for this area. This plan will gradually, over the course of many years, thin the non- native trees and replant with trees that are native. The City Forester has reviewed this plan, and all other pertinent tree preservation issues. A copy of . . the Forestry review of the development is attached to this review for reference. All trees to be preserved on site will be structurally protected during construction with tree preservation fencing. This fencing will be primarily orange plastic snow fencing supported by steel fence posts. In areas where the tree fencing coincides with silt fence, trees will be protected by the orange silt fence. The fence posts in these areas will also have warning ribbon tied on the post to provide visibility from rearview mirrors of trucks and equipment. LANDSCAPING: The developer has submitted a landscape plan as part of the PUD. This plan includes extensive plantings across the development, including all common areas, street intersection islands, lake access, and around the ponds. The use of decorative paving is also proposed. The homeowners association will be responsible for all maintenance of all structures and vegetative landscaping. . The City Forester has reviewed the proposed landscape plans. Pleasesee his review for details. The developer will be required to submit an as-built plan, in reproducible and digital format, of all the landscaping installed on site. This plan must include the irrigation system, street lighting and wiring, monuments, and any other items that could conflict with any City repair or maintenance of the public utilities. The Homeowner's Association will also be required to hire a locating firm to meet it's obligations for underground locations through Gopher State One call. BUILDING PERMITS: The developer has indicated that they would like to construct a series of model homes over the winter of 1.997-98. Building permits for the proposed model homes may not be issued until the street in front of each model has the aggregate base installed, and the final plat is recorded with Hennepin County. The model homes are proposed on the following lots: . Lot 2,3,4,5,6 and 7, Block 4 Lots 3 or 4, Block 6 Lots 6,21-23, Block 10 Lots 1 and 2, Block 11 Lots 3 and 4, Block 12 No other building permits will be issued within the development until the base course of asphalt has been installed. . SECURITIES: Consistent with past City policy, the developer will be required to post a security for all the public improvements and erosion control on site. This security must be equal. to the construction costs of these improvements plus an estimated 35% for indirect costs. Indire~t costs include items such as engineering and surveying, inspections, leg3i and administrative costs and preparation of record drawings. The amount of this security is determined as follows: · Erosion and sediment control · Sanitary sewer · Watermain · Storm sewer and ponding · Trails Sub Total 35% Indirect Cost $ 101,241.90 $ 431,408.00 $ 347,491.23 $ 489,616.13 $ 33.665.50 $1,403,422.75 $ 491.197.96 ~1.894.620.71 . Total Security This security, in a form acceptable to the finance director, must be provided to the City prior to approval of the final plat. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above review, Engineering staff recommends approval of the Hidden Lakes Planned Unit Development General Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) The developer obtain the storm water drainage easement from the Minneapolis Park Board as outlined in their review. 2) The developer must provide a legal description and lake access easement for Outlot K for recording. 3) Vacation and rededication on the plat of the easements in favor of the City of Golden Valley for trunk utilities. 4) Recording of the Easement agreement between Hidden Lakes and Transitional Health Care for access across the site. S) Preparation and recording of the Conservation easements on and near . Block 10 and Outlot G prior to the approval of the final plat. 6) Preparation and recording of the Conservation easements within Block 6 prior to issuance of any building permits on these lots. . 7) The developer obtain a Department of Natural Resources permit for work in protected waters for the proposed lake access and improvements to the roadway over Bassett Creek. This permit must be obtained prior to beginning any work on these items. 8) The developer must obtain a permit from Hennepin County for work in the right-of-way for Golden Valley Road. 9) The developer agree to construct and maintain a eight foot wide bituminous trailway across the site. This trail must be within a 15 foot wide trailway easement dedicated to the City of Golden Valley. 10) Revision of the proposed trail system at each of the intersections along Hidden Lakes Parkway to improve pedestrian safety as outlined within this review. These revisions should also include crosswalks and signing as discussed. 11 )The address system and street names must be acceptable to the Inspection Services Department. 12) Improvement of the existing private sanitary sewer on the north end of the site as described in this review. 13)The developer must obtain a permit from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for work on the existing trunk sanitary sewer across the north portion of the site. 14)The developer shall perform pressure monitoring on a new fire hydrant near the water reservoir to determine the need for surge protection in the development, and must install any surge protection deemed necessary . 15)Provide individual fire protection systems for all housing units in Blocks 9 and 10. 16)Subject of the comments and approval of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 17)Preparation of individual erosion control plans for each lot in the development. 18)Posting of securities for the public improvements as outlined in this review. 19)5ubject to all other requirements outlined in this review that are not contained in this summary. 20)Subject to the comments of the Minneapolis Park Board. . Approval of this PUD should also be subject to the comments of the Planning Department, City Attorney and other City staff. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. . ..lL.l' , u,. 1'111 " ,L.U."1..)\"V . '.I.U-1u-;;". "u<Z. L j l'4Utl'4'" 553810~;; 2/ 3' MlonegssCtf A No.... ENERGY COMPANY . September 25, 1997 " William Huser PrOject Manager, Hidden lakes 4121 Golden Valley, MN. 55422 . - ~.::- :....:_..-:.~_: ~:'::::"":'_:.::'::::::'::':':-:-'-'~":'.:..::::::.: AE: Panial Release of Minnegasco Easement #94-72 Hidden Lakes Development Mlnnegasco gas main job A-3764-97 . Dear Mr. Huser: Responding to your request in your Jetter dated September 2, 1997 concerning the easement referenced above, Minnegasco intends to execute a partial release of easement Subsequent to abandonment of the existing gas main. Prior to execution of the partial release of easement and the release to C6nstruction of the new plat of Hidden Lakes Development. J must confirm that public right-at-way or a general utility easement is created across Outlots A, B, C, 0, E, Island Drive and Hidden Lakes North. This Includes all traveled corridors within the plat. This is necessary because of existing gas service to properties to the south and west of the . plat. . Please provide documentation providing general "utility rights t~ the .ar~~~t~b..on.prjoc__.__" -to release to construction of the-P}at"andexecutlon ()j"th"epaitiafrelease of easement. Any documentation provide must be in recordable form and eventually recorded With the Hennepin County recorder. Please caU me at 321-5381 if you have any questions. Respectfully, MINNEGASCO ~L- tLCa Steven Van Barge~ Real Estate SpeCialist , pc: fax #529-0009 . 700 West Linden Avenue . Hennep!!tpo~yQllnty October 6, 1997 ----------- - -------------- Jeff Oliver Assistant City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE Hidden Lakes Access to CSAH 66 (Golden Valley Road) Dear Jeff: .As we discussed, the developer of the above noted site has substantially complied with Hennepin County's original review. . The landscape plan dated August 1997, shows revising the approach to County State Aid Highway (eSAH) 66 including landscaping and geometric changes plus a minor traffic signal revision. These modifications are acceptable subject to the following remarks/requirements. · The two egress lanes must be about 100 feet long to allow right turning vehicles to bypass the left turn queue in order to turn right on red. The ingress lane currently functions as a ;;ingle lane. Reducing the width to 16'-18' will adequately serve. · The proposed signal revision (relocating the pole in the approach median) will be acceptable if the private driveway it serves still has two signal heads visible within a 400 cone of view. · The long-term maintenance responsibility for the street-scape signal pole paint will be the City's responsibility. Hennepin County cannot enter agreements with private organizations. When these issues are resolved, the appropriate permits will be issued. . Department ofPubllc Worlcs 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2Sl3 1DD:(612)930-2696 Rq;Ildhptr Mr. Jeff Oliver Page 2 Please keep Hennepin County apprised of the progress of the development to enable us to respond in a timely manner to changes as they arise. Sincerely, A,~ David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ:gk cc: Steve Harvey, RLK Kuusisto . Paul Backer, Hennepin County Permits Jerry Smrcka, Hennepin County Operations , . . . . . . O~T 7'97 5:54 FR BARR ENGINEERING 612 832 2601 TO 95933988 P.04/06 To: JtffOImr From; .r.un Bubut Projec:a . Hic1c1e1l. Laku neftiapm8llt Subjeet: WatwQuality, Dl'lIiDap a:ud ~II. Control Ea..ww Datec October o. 1991 ~s Water Distribution Network Review Our rme'W of the water distribution network was limited to the genera1la.yout, adherence to Ten State Standards. and the potential for pressure surge$ in the system. General Layout The gu.erallayout of the water distribution network shows five connections to the. a:iting' City distribution system. Three of the connections are on the east side of the development and eonnect to an existing IS-inch water main, one connection is on the south side of the development which connects to an eDsting. lS-inch. water main, and one connection is on the northeast comer of the development which connects to an e:risting 8-inch water main. It is unclear if the 58-foot long line" shown at station 14+10 on Hidden Lakes Parkway is being installed as a future connection to. a water m.ain., or if this line is to be stubbed and capped. This item should be elaritied. There are three dead end runs shown on the plans. One line dead ends at the end of Island Drive, This line is appro:imately 475 feet long and has a hydrant located appromnately 100 feet from the terminat:ion:point. The second dead end line is located at appronmately station 1+37 on Hiddeg. Lakes East, and is 110 feet long and has a hydrant located on the end of the line. The third dead end is the 58-foot long line at station 14+10 on Hidden Lakes Parkway. .As previously mentioJ1ed. it is unclear of the intention of this pipe. This stub does not have a hydrant located on it. Based on our limited review of the plans, it appears that. the general layout of the water m.1Sin systeJn has m;nm.;ged dead eDd lines and provides good flow patterns wbich will reduce tlle potential of water stagnation. The dead end lines shown appear to service only a limited" number of residences and ftushiDg pomts have been provided on.t;wo of the tbl-ee lines noted. Ten $tate Standards Ten State Standards (Reco?n....e...ded Standards for WatfJr Works. Great Lakes . Upper ~R-c;.ippi River Board of State Public Health & Envi:rw:l,..~...ml Managers) are nonenforceable standazds u* by the Mi:onesota Depaztment of Health in their review of public water supply projects. The following items were reviewed for coniormance to Ten State Standa:rds: presame, dead en~ valve spacing. hydrant ~. separation and crossings of water maiDs and &aDitary sewer.s.. . OCT 7'97 5:55 FR BARR ENGINEERING S12 832 2601 TO 95933988 TOI JaiI'Oliftr ProID* Jim Herileri ProjeeCI maaea Lak8a n.~ Subject: Water Quality, DraiDap and Ero.iou Qmtrol Review Dater October 6 1997 P-an4 Pressure Ten State Standards recommends that all water mains be designed to. maintain alDiz:Wnmn ptessme of 20 psi at all points in the distribution system under all conditions of flow and the noImal working pressure in the distributioD system should be appzoximately 60 psi and not leu than 35 psi. .According to the fire flow analysis conducted by RLK Kuusisto LTD. the maximum average day pressure ranges:from 74.5 psi to 36.8 psi. It appeazs that the I'eqairements of pRame~n~m~in~ep~p~d~~mm~ Dead Ends Ten State Standards recommends that where dead ends occur, a fire hydrant or device for flushing Plll'p08eS shall be provided. As stated earli8l', two of the three dead end !iDes located in the p~posed development have flushing hydrants. The third dead end line does not have a hydrant on it. Valve Placement Ten State Standards recommends that valves be located at distances sppromnately 800 teet apart. In geJWal. this recommendation is met in the proposed development. The area along HiddeD. Lakes West, the valve distance a:ceeds 800 feet. However. Ten State Standards ano~ for this distance to be exceed in areas of low service density, as appears to be the case. Hydrant Spacing Ten State Standards recommends that 1ire hydrants be spaced between 850 to 600 feet, ;IependiDg on the area being served. This recommeudation appeus to be ~ in the pro~ed development area. Separation and Crossings of Water main. and Sanitary SeW8l'$ Ten State Standards recommends that water mains be laid at least lo-feet horizontally fro. any existing or proposed sewer. This recommendation is met in the propQSed development. Ten State Standards also recoJDZMDas that whue water mains and sewers ero&8, a minimum vertical distance of 18-incb.es shaD separate the outside or the water main and the outside of the sewer. This con~tion does not "appear to be met at station 1+93 on Hidden La.kea Parkway. and at 21+60 on Hidden ~ Parkwa.y. In both cases, the vertical distance appears to be leu than m inches. P.05/0S . . . - . . . OCp 7'97 5:56 FR BARR ENGINEERING 612 882 2601 TO 95988988 TOt Jd Olivw From: .rim Labat Proj... HiddenI.Uu Deftlopmem Subject: Water Qaality, Drablap and ~ CoDlzol B.trriew Date ~6. U97 PanS Pressure Surges Steve Manhik., Barr contacted Merlin Thorn., Golden Valley Utility Supervisor to disewsa the pressure surge issue. A&cording to Mr. Thome. there is a pump station located along the eastern border of the proposed development.. The pressure in the pumphouse ahowa significant variations when the pump toms on aJ1d off. The pump is a con.stant speed pomp and water sm:ges are controlled by a hydraulically actuated control valve that slowly opens and cloaea daring the starting and stopping of the pump. This prac;t:ice is common in m.unicipal water distribution for controlling pressure surges. Mr. Thome said. that Coun.ge Celter and the "old hospital'" are the closest water lUICS to the . pwnp house and neither facility have had problems in the past with pressure fluctuations. To quantify the pressure sarges in the distribution network., a distriblltion sistem pJ'eSSU1"e model would have to be used, or a recording pressure gage would have to be connected to the main. The latter approach was proposed in the Aag\l$t 11. 1997 letter to Steve Harvey (RLK Kuusisto. LTD.) from Eric Wharton (R1J{ Knusisto. LTD.). Although it is unlikely that pnssme surges will be a problem in the DeW df!relopment. additioDal modeling or testing would have to be conduc:ted to provide a complete assap'''''ftt of the need for ~e protection. 540'12-1 . P.06/06 ** TOTAL PAGE.B0S ** - 00 915 Gc!den "'aile:; ?Jaa ioiden Val;ey. MN 55.122 ")12) 5sa.1]8ii 3X i6i2i 520.057:- -::y 1612j 520..j2.:3 urage Center is a lprofll organization I provides rehabilitation. ichmeni. independent living, :ationaJand educa~onaJ VICeS to empower ceopie 1 ~ disabdities and ISOfY impalrments:o achle'Je ir lull potenliaJ. JaI OpportUni~1 Provider Iniled ~/.AfJerr:l , " '- n October 3, 1997 Mr. Jeff Oliver Assistant City Engineer 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 ;-------- -.. -. - ... ----- --..---- Dear Mr. Oliver: Courage Center representatives met with Hidden lakes staff to review the proposed storm management system as it relates to Courage Center property. It is our understanding that the City of Golden Valley seeks to assume operations and maintenance of the storm pipes leading to our treatment pond, as well as the pond itself, if granted the appropriate easements for same. It is also' our understanding that it is preferable to include these easements on the actual plat to be recorded as the new Hidden lakes PUD 75. Please be advised that Courage Center is in agreement with this concept in principle, and will work with the City and Hidden lakes to accomplish same. We will, however, need to be assured that both the City and Hidden lakes use the same care to the preserve the pond and its surrounding landscape . as Courage Center has provided to create the existing ecosystem, for which we must. reach agreement through the language of this easement. Please be reminded that the aesthetics of the pond and surrounding garden are an essential amenity to Courage Center and that Courage Center will need to be fully assured that those aesthetics are preserved to Courage Center's standards. It is Courage Center's understanding that no construction costs associated with the proposed storm management system will be paid by Courage Center and no assessments or future costs will be paid by Courage Center. It is also Courage Center's understanding that the continuing maintenance of the pond will be at the sole expense of the City of Golden Valley. Courage Center understands that this change will not be accomplished in time to incorporate it into the actual plat, however, we understand that this easement and its related conditions can be recorded along with the plat by separate instrument., . . I look forward to meeting with you and Mr. Huser of Hidden lakes to determine precisely where and how this should come. together. If you have any questions, please call me at 520-0249. Todd ohnso Assoc ecutive Director Administration/Human Resources cc: Bill Huser, Hidden lakes Bob Silverman, Dorsey Whitney, Attorneys . ~t .,C,J-c.... .....C/~ . ... -"""0' _.o._..~ .... '.'.... . 0.......... October 7, 1997 Environmental Operations Section 3800 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis 55409-1029 Jeff Oliver City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road . --'uoloen'Valley;MN '55427-4588'-H___.-'---'.-' ........- ....... ...".-....-....-.--.... ---.------- Dear Mr. Oliver: .11I: SCOlt L. Neiman Well I'r':.f;(ltnf: f:luic:i~ HillnlCyCt The Park and Recreation Board has completed a final review of the Hidden Lakes Development construction plans. Based upon the plans as presented,MPRB staffhad the foUowingitems that need to be addressed prior to initiation of construction on the site. Commiss/Orlu.r: Th(lmll.~ W. Baker Rochelle Berry Omvcs Vivian M. M:i.~on George t'U7S Edward C. Solomon Annie YoUng , OeM 7.imlllCfl'lll\lln 2) Review of the runoff calculations have satisfied the Board that our property will not be Supujn,~"dt,": adversely impacted by increases in quantity or rate of runoff: However the developer will UlIvid L. fi~hc:r need to obtain a stonnwater easement nom the MPRB. Eileen Kilpatrick, MPRB Special Seel'ttllf'j ", flu Huard: Services. Permits Section will need to be contacted to initiate the easement process. MlUY Merrill Andc:l'llCln AIUnWSITUI;VII Offict:s: 3) Prior to start of construction, appropriate MPRB staff would like to tour the site (as part 400 South Fow1h Sb-ecl of a pre-construction meeting) with the contractor and developer to insure that trees and Suite 200 . d durin . S dl th MPRB will b d MinnCllpnli', MN sS41~f&gtat1on are protecte . g construction. econ y~ e . e name as an Plam,,,: 6\2-661004\\00 additionally insured party in the construction bonding to protect the MPRB from any Fax: 612.661-4777 d trimental .. TrY: 612-661.47118 e constructlOn unpacts. 1) One of the oveniding concerns of the MPRB is protection oflake water quality in both Twin and Sweeney lakes. As such we would like to see land covenants and ho~eo~ education programs to protect the lakes from runoff from lawn care fertilizers. This would be in addition to the proposed ponding being undertaken to protect water quality. O{H:fU.tiuns Center: .d\Ins allati" fthe silt zo. and all d" . b thd 10 " "~ryant Avenue SoUOl t on 0 J.ence gra mg IS to e on e eve pers property, at no time ~aPOlis MN SS409infringing upon MPRB land. We would also like to request that the current fence on the east "ia:"~I~.I~~~ and south borders of the development remain in place. It is also important that an property monuments be protected during construction. EqlIlIl Opponunily PtoVidet or t.ddute I/Il(/ Rec:,..1iOIla1 S6NiCH 5) The construction plans detail a sidewalk ending at the MPRB property line (outlot H). There is currently no access to MPRB parldandat that location. We are requesting that the / developer meet with MPRB to discuss access issues related to the adjacent Wirth Park areas. We would additionally request that the developer provide proff that they have advised potential buyers that this part ofWinh Park will be maintained in a natural state, tht;:MPRB has no plans for future development or changes to the current management plan and that there will be no access to the Wirth Golf Courses from Hiddens Lakes. 6) MPRB currently has emergency and maintenance access to WuthPark and would.like assurances that this access will continue. Iflcan be offurther assistance, feel free to can me at 370-4900. (tjf. ?j:~ liQLee Environmental Operations Manager cc: Robert Mattson, Asst. Supt PlanDing Micheal Schmidt, Ass1. Sup1. Planning Bill Huser, Hidden Lakes Development '. . . . : . ... . . . .. } ~ '-' 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: December 10. 1997 William S. Joynes. City Manager Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Approval of PUD Permit for Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 At the October 21. 1997 City Council meeting. the Council approved Ordinance No. 171. This Ordinance gave approval to the General Plan of Development for Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74. The Ordinance was approved with the condition that the engineering considerations and requirements found in the memo dated October 16. 1997 from Jeff Oliver, P.E., Assistant City Engineer, be incorpor- ated in the approval of the General Plan. The City Council included six modifications to the Oliver memo. Attached is a copy of the minutes from the October21st meeting. After General Plan approval, a PUD permit is then drafted by City staff for approval by the City Council. The permit is attached to this memo for your consideration and approval. This permit takes into consideration the issues that are found in the October 16, 1997 engineering memo and the additional considerations approved by the City Council at the October 21, 1997 meeting. This PUD permit is the first one that the Council will consider with a master PUD permit and sub-permits for areas within the PUD. This format for PUD permits was approved by the Council within the past year in order to better deal with PUDs that have more than one lot and multiple ownership. Currently, any PUD with multiple lots and ownerships requires that all owners within the PUD must approve any changes to the PUD through the PUD amendment process. The City now allows sub-permits for some or all the lots within a PUD with multiple ownership which allow for certain amendments without the approval of all parcel owners within a PUD. In this PUD permit for Hidden Lakes, there are several sub-permits that allows for some types of PUD amendments to be brought to the City Council for consideration with only the sub-permitee making application. For instance, the Courage Center may make changes to its parking lot and landscaping without getting approval for all owners in the PUD. There is also a sub-permit for the peninsula which allows only the OWner of the peninsula to make application for further development on the peninsula. , , , ) < At the October 21, 1997 City Council meeting, there was discussion about park . dedication. Hidden Lakes is giving the City an easement over Outlot K which allows for a canoe launch and small public park. Since the Council meeting, the staff has met with the developer. The developer agreed to increase the size of Outlot Kby about 8,400 sq.ft. to about 27,500 sq.ft. in area. It was also agreed that the developer would add picnic tables, a paved path shelter and an accessible canoe dock as shown on the revised site plan for Outlot K. The use of Outlot K by the City isoutl.ined in an easement agreement. Along with the trail through the site, the staff believes this meets the requirement of the law for park dedication. The developer has asked the City to agree that there would be no further park dedication (cash or land) required when other phases of residential development are done by Hidden Lakes. This is reflected in the PUD permit and in another agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve, by motion, the PUD permit for Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74. This permit covers the issues that have been raised by the City Council in its past approvals and discussion related to Hidden Lakes. The use of the master and sub-permit PUD works well with this development due to the various uses and multiple owners within. the PUD. Attachments: Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Permit and Sub-permits (6) Entry Specialty Landscape Plan (L5) - enclos.ed separately . . 2