02-24-97 PC Agenda
.~-_ ._c
. --
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
.Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
February 24,1997
7pm
Approval of Minutes - February 10, 1997
I.
II.
Informal Public Hearing: Amendment to the Comprehensive Land- Use
Plan Map - Hidden Lakes Development
Address: 4121-4147 Golden Valley Road
(Portion of Golden Valley Health Center Site)
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:
Purpose:
4121-4147 Golden Valley Road
(Portion of Golden Valley Health Center Site)
Rezoning of the subject property from Institutional to
Residential
IV. Informal Public Hearing: Preliminary Design Plan, Hidden Lakes P.U.D.
No. 74
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
.
Hidden Lakes Development, LP
4101-4147 Golden Valley Road
(Portion of Golden Valley Health Center Site)
Review ofthe Preliminary Design Plan Which would allow
for the construction of 176 residences in -detached and
attached construction ~tyles on a portion ofthe P.U.D.
- Short Recess-
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, and Board of Zoning Appeals
.
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will
recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of
whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. and whether the
proposed use will. or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand. what such
proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part
of the record and will be used by the Council. along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its
decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the commission continues
with the remainder of the agenda.
...-..il_.
,.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following
procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission
members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the propos~1 and answer any questions from the Commission.
3. The Chair will open the public hearing. asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their
hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have
indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/
comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember. your
questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak
initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
7.
At the close of the public hearing. the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action.
.J
,
..
.
e
e
M!nutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
February 10 , 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
Vice-Chair Pentel at 7pm.
Those present were Commissioners Greger, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, and Pentel; absent were Johnson
and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth
Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - January 13.1996
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Greger and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 13,
1997 minutes as submitted.
n. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Planned Unit Development No. 72 - Preliminary
Design Plan -- TreviIla of Golden Valley
Applicant:
Dnicare Homes, 'Inc.
Address:
7445 Glenwood Avenue and 7505 Country Club Drive, Golden Valley,
Minnesota
Purpose:
To amend P.D.D. No. 72 Trevilla of Golden Valley which would allow
for the construction of a one-bedroom apartment, with a kitchenette, on the
northwest side of the building and another one-bedroom apartment, with a
kitchenette, on the south side of the building.
City Planner Beth Knoblauch reviewed the staff report. She also noted on minor item that had
been overlooked when the report was written. Because of changes in the driveway at the south
end of the nursing home building, it now lies less than the normally required distance of 25 feet
from a residential property line. Only a small stretch of driveway is involved, and one purpose of
the PUD designation is to allow such variation from standard code requirements as long as the
overall proposal is sound.
City Planner Knoblauch told the commission that staff recommends approval of the amendment to
Trevilla of Golden Valley P.D.D. No. 72 with the following recommendations:
. The applicant meet the required 124 parking spaces by showing proof of parking for the
additional two spaces on the site plan
· The landscaping plan submitted with the original P.D.D. be attached to the amendment. If the
applicant wishes to change the landscaping plan, it should be discussed.
,
..
Minutes of the Golden Valley Platining Commission
February 10, 1997
Page Two
e
Commissioner Lewis asked if staff has received any complaints regarding parking. Knoblauch
answered staff is not aware of any problems or complaints.
Commissioner Groger asked if parking on the west side of the campus would be remaining the
same. Knoblauch answered yes.
Commissioner Groger asked if the two parking spaces, that are missing from this site plan, can be
put offuntil needed. Knoblauch answered as long as the spaces are noted on the plan they can be
held as green space until such time as they are actually needed for parking use.
Don Olsen, representative for Unicare and Architect for PDC Design Group, addressed the parking
issue and can hold two spaces in reserve to the front of the Trevilla Nursing Home. Mr. Olsen
noted that the reason for deleting the circular drive area to the south will give better access for
trucks maneuvering in this area. Olsen said that the landscape plan submitted with the original
P.U.D. request is the plan they wil.! abide by.
Vice-Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Vice-Chair
Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Lewis supports the plan with the exception that the two parking spaces should be e
provided for if needed. Commissioner Kapsner concurred.
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the request to amend the Preliminary Design Plan for Trevilla of Golden Valley
P.U.D. No. 72 conditioned on the site plan showing two additional parking spaces on the
northwest side of the Trevilla Nursing Home and the original landscape plan remaining in effect.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council
and Board of Zoning Appeals
Director Mark Grimes reported on an HRA meeting concerning Area Al and CSM discussion on a
portion of the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area.
Director Grimes also told the commission that the HRA is looking who should be appointed to the
Area B Task Force. Vice-Chair Pentel said that she had spoken with HRA Chair Johnson about
the appropriateness of having some one of the task force from OPUS and the Track Center and
believes there could be a conflict of interest.
IV. Other Business
A.
Discussion with Mayor Anderson regarding cable-casting of Planning
Commission Meetings
e
,
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 13, 1997
. Page Three
Mayor Anderson commented that she believes there are people watching these meetings.
Commission Kapsner commented that he believes that cable-casting is a useful tool which puts the
City in the 1990's, and is in favor of continuing cable-casting. Several commissioners were
concerned with the cost of cable-casting and could the money be used elsewhere. Mayor
Anderson said that she would talk with appropriate staff to get an answer and reply back to
commission.
B. National APA Convention in San Diego
Commissioner Kapsner will be attending the convention in San Diego in April of this year.
C. Appropriateness of Co~missioners Testifying on Upcoming Agenda Items
Commissioner Groger asked for feedback concerning commissioners testifying at other City
meetings regarding a matter that will come before the Planning Commission. Director Grimes
commented that there is nothing in the Commission's By-Laws or State laws to prevent this
occurrence. After much discussion it was determined that if a commissioner was to testify on an
item he/he should first state that they are a member of the Planning Commission but that they are
speaking as a private citizen.
e
V.
Adjournment
Vice-Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:50 pm.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
.
.
e
e
~E M 0 R A N_D U M
Date: February 19, 1997
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Mark W. Gri.mes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Informal Public Hearing --Amendmentto the
Comprehensive Plan Map from Semi- Public Facilities to
Low Density Residential and; Amendment to the Zoning
Map from Institutional (1-3) to Residential, Hidden Lakes
Development, Applicant
In order for the Preliminary Design Plan for Hidden Lakes PUD to be considered for
the residential development, the Planning Commission must consider amendments
to both the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map. Without these
amendments, the proposed use of the great majority of the Hidden Lakes
development would not be consistent with the guiding or zoning of the property. It is
the policy of the City to only allow planning requests to go forward if they are
consistent with the Plan Map and Zoning Map.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
In order for the Planning Commission to consider the requested rezoning of that
portion of the proposed Hidden Lakes PUD that will be utilized for residential
development from 1-3 to Residential, the Comprehensive Plan Map must first be
amended. It is the policy of this City and of State Law that the Zoning Map and
Comprehensive Plan Map be consistent. Because of this consistency requirement,
the developer is requ"esting that the Comprehensive Plan Map designation or
guiding for that portion of the Hidden Lakes Development, that will be residential, be
amended from Semi-Public to Low Density Residential (1-4 units per acre).
Amending the Comprehensive Plan is addressed in Sec. 11.90, Subd. 7 of the
Administration Chapter of the Zoning Code. The Code basically states that the Plan
(which includes the Map) may be amended from time to time as long as the proper
steps are taken. These steps include an informal public hearing before the Planning
Commission. There is little or no direction given in this section of the Code about
the items or issues that should be considered as part of the amendment process. As
1
is the case with any Comprehensive Plan amendment considered by the City, this
proposed amendment will be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and _
comment. No final approval for the Hidden Lakes PUD may be given by the City _
Council until they have heard from the Metropolitan Council regarding the
amendment. The Metro Council has the responsibility to determine what, if any,
effects the proposed development may have on the metropolitan systems such as
highways, sewers, regional parks and airports. The staff will recommend that after
the City Council receives its rec0mmendation from the Planning Commission on the
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment, action on the amendment is either delayed
until after Metro Council comments are received or approved with the contingency
that their actions may be amended pending Metro Council review and comment.
The City may continue its review of the PUD for Hidden Lakes as long as final action
ts not taken prior to Metro Council review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The entire area proposed for the PUD is now designated on the Comprehensive
Plan Map as Semi-Public. This designation is for uses such as hospitals, clinics or
institutions. This designation for this area has been the same since the
Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1972. This designation was probably
adopted because the existing hospital and clinic were already on the site at that
time. The first hospital buildings were constructed in the 1930's.
There are several issues that staff believes should be considered when reviewing
this proposed amendment. They are:
e
Traffic - This is a unique parcel of property due to the site having only one
access from Golden Valley Road. This access is also shared by the Neurology
Clinic, Courage Center and the THC hospital. Because of its limited access, there
has been concerns over the past quarter century regarding the increased
development on this property. One of the prime concerns of the neighbors, to the
north and west of the site, has been the added traffic on Golden Valley Road. The
possible reuse of this site for other institutional uses, offices, commercial or high
density residential would create a significant amount of traffic. This added traffic
would overburden existing Golden Valley Road and require substantial
improvements to the roadway. A low density development with three or fewer units
per acre will not have a significant impact on Golden Valley Road.
Sharing of access road between institutional and residential uses - If the
Hidden Lakes proposal is approved, there will be a mix of traffic sharing the main
road to the remaining institutional uses in the PUD. Due to the low volume of traffic
that would occur with a low -density residential development, this shared access
should not be an issue. The access to the Neurology Clinic and Courage Center will
remain essentially as is today with some improvements. Access to the THC hospital
at the south end of the site will be over a shared road that will be open to the public.
Reduction of Institutional Property in Golden Valley - According to the
Comprehensive Plan, 17% of the City is guided for institutional uses on the Plan
e
2
.
.
.
Map. This includes city, state, school, park, church, and hospital/clinic properties.
This is a significant amount of land in this category. The reduction of 68 acres in
this category will reduce the amount to 16% of the total acreage.
It should be noted that this property was on the market to institutional users for
several years after the hospital closed in 1992. No potential buyers were found
indicating that the market for large, institutional sites is limited. Because this
property is located partially on two lakes, it makes the property extremely valuable;
more valuable than most institutional uses can pay.
Need for Additional Residential Property within Golden Valley - The City is fully
developed. Any significant new residential development will occur only with
redevelopment or the changing of land uses on specific site. This 68 acre
development will provide the City with needed land for residential development and
help the City to fulfill some of its housing goals. The City receives numerous phone
calls each year from either citizens who would like to build in Golden Valley but
cannot find property, or developers who would like to build in the City because it is a
desirable location. This is a prime location for housing due to its location to
Minneapolis, parks and lakes.
This use of the property for low density residential development will not help the City
reach any of its housing goals related to increasing the affordability of housing or
increasing the density of housing.
Development of environmental sensitive area - Due to the location of this site on
two lakes and the significant elevation changes, any development of the site must
be done in a manner that is sensitive to these issue. A low density residential
development, on this site, would be one of the best types of developments to deal
with these concerns because coverage of the lots with impervious surfaces is less
than most other types of development. There are many environmental regulations
that must be followed in the. development of any shoreland area which are reviewed
by the City and other agencies.
RECOMMENDED ACTION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the
Comprehensive Plan Map for that portion of the Hidden Lakes Development that will
be residentially developed. The current designation of this property is Semi-Public
and the requested change is the Low Density Residential (1-4 units per acre). The
change in the guiding of this property to residential will increase the amount of
needed residential property in the City. The residential use of this property will have
a lower traffic impact on the surrounding area than other types of uses. The
residential use of this property can also be done in a manner that is sensitive to the
existing environment including the shoreland. The overall reduction of institutionally
3
designated property in Golden Valley will not have a negative effect on the City due
to the decreased number of semi-public type facilities being constructed in large .
campus settings.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
After the amendment to the Comp Plan Map is considered by the Commission, the
Zoning Map amendment for the residentially proposed property in the PUD may be
considered. The proposal is to amend the Zoning Map from 1-3 Institutional (private
clubs, hospitals, resthomes, nursing homes and clinics) to Residential. The purpose
of the Residential zoning district is to provide for single-family, detached dwelling
units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. Although
the proposed Hidden Lakes PUD does include 110 attached townhome units, the
density of the overall development is in the low density category that is generally
found in single-family developments. (The overall density is 2.6 units per acre which
is similar to many single-family neighborhoods.) Staff recommends that the
Residential zoning district is most appropriate for this development because of this
low density and the proposal to develop this area as a PUD. With the PUD process,
the City has the right to consider other forms of residential uses where a single use
zoning district is too rigid for practical application.
There is little direction given in the Administration Chapter of the Zoning Code
relating to zoning code amendments. However, the Code and State law requires .
that there should be consistency between the Zoning Map and the Comprehensive
Plan Map. If the Planning Commission recommends changing the Comprehensive
Plan Map, then the legal requirement of consistency would be taken care of, if the
Commission agrees to rezone the property to Residential.
The issues regarding the rezoning of the property are much the same as the issues
addressed above for the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. The staff would
refer you to the above section of the memo. With the specific rezoning of this
property to Residential, only single-family homes may be built on this property. With
a single-family development, the density would be in the area of 2-4 units per acre.
With this particular site, the single-family density would probably be on the lower
side due to the shoreline and steep slopes. The developer is proposing a PUD that
would permit design flexibility on the site. Rather than building all single-family
homes on large lots, the developer has chosen to propose 41 standard single-family
lots, 25 villa lots and 110 townhome units.
The City staff is in favor of using the PUD process in order to encourage better site
utilization, minimize the eff~ct of the development on the natural environment, and
to provide a greater variety of housing types on the site.
.
4
.
.
.
RECOMMENDED ACTION.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Zoning Map amendment for the property in the Hidden Lakes PUD that will be
residentially developed. The properties owned by the Courage Center, Neurology
Clinic and THC hospital will remain with the 1-3 Institutional zoning which is
consistent with their uses. The Zoning Map amendment would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Map assuming it is approved.
MWG:mkd
Attachment:
Location Map
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
Comprehensive Plan (Please refer to your personal copy)
Zoning Map (enclosed separately)
5
i
i.
I'.~
, ..
~'1:':} I.. 77
._........'.1
.. ..f,,'-'.-
...
-."
~~~
~ i ~ ..
,. t.or :
1 ~l'.I. I
.- l~,\;r
.- ... ~. \a t
I: ~ "ta'k
I
,\~ ll) I
~I
r
--
.. : :uol
\
,
'-
.~.-
-OOOL
-0001
-00CtI
-....
-con 0
- 00" 0'1
-00.... 0'1
-00" m .-(
- 00"
- .... QJ
. C
. :::l
'"':I
.s:::.
C
.....
C
So.
.c
+.l
u:
+'
C
Q;
E
"0
C
Q;
E
ct
v:
+.l
(.;
Q;
r-
I.p.
Q;
0::
z
~
!J
. 1'0" ... IN III 'Ill .0 J.j,l:)
0 ; o 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~ 0 ~ I
0 !" ; 0 0 e 0 r 0
. N i i i
I I I MAP
],,'OS 11I1 II 1011I
--..
.
.0
A..ll:)
....-
& ~ ~ 2 ~ i : 001.- .... ;'"~~,
1 . a " ~ N N = ~~j -,O!. .",.,,- ,,_
I I I I I I 100"~,,~J\ __:,,'~'~ " ~
~ ::~ f:;~~:~~~~=t~-;u~':J:; ~:'~' - /-?!
00"-3r-""-~-;'~:::=J::~~t~, t ,,.....
oon- -, 'it' -~J', -'"~~ ~~.. .. ,-....
... 00'.- t ii:;lrA.~.'.I..c..- ~ .. ~1~ ' , j.~":- . .....
no 006.- ! J~' ., .-..... t.:...':l' J.,,~......:w ~ i ~. ... ~ _ . 0:
::= i:~~',~. ~~~~:::f "_.~~;~;;~::_~::;:? :~~~'1#I~
5::= t: ~i~~r:;~,;~;Iiti~~;f'~'" ~fQ'~ ~<.
l.~ . ,_, _~: "'~"'_-_< --..~~~ .
OO~- .f~~~'" ,-,:~'~~~:. ~":)'I'il= ~-= ..
DOU- " ~"j: _ '.' .......l
; ::=rtiJ._~:;}: " -.~~:':; \ ~
~ ()(MC;- .;- ~'l"";'!: ~ .-i~._- ~ i _7~ ~~
00Q1)- ,J::~ :;.,..,,-:1<. i::!c. "",
.~,,- ^. . )'. 'l 1~ C -"-"
oOI'-llt~ r- ~ t - .,~.:':;:I:.O.lt:_.' -=.,.....~"
: oon- ~, ~ OC'.w-_~.. ~ .-:"
oou- _--=-"'=..:..~ -~:~:.~.:. ".,...., , ':_;~ ~
00"- ~ ,:'~'" }Q.
. 000- :lj-_ ~ "~ .
G 00"- *
QIOU- ~
0000- 1
=
~
0
-ooc.
-000<
-OOIL
-oou
-00<<
-00....
.
.
.
~t
~.
i!
..:! 00"'-
"1"1
Iii
.3
o.
~;
or
w.
=t
~ ~
0
~ '"
~ ~
z
z
St i
.. f
.: ~.-
1;it u
~ z
ii:
~
0 z .
z
. "'
"
..
i!
~.
s
I I I I I
~~~~~
M,Lno,u,:w
..,
4.J.I)
COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLAN
.
PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC
~
~
C:::J
~
~
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAHILY (LOW DENSITY)
HEDIUH DENSITY
HIGH DENSITY
CJ
I:::::::::;:;:::::::l
~
HUNICIPAL - PARKS, NATURAL AREAS
SEHI-PUBLIC FACILITIES
SCHOOLS, HIGHWAY DEPT.
100 FT (APPROX) GREENBELT N. OF
LAUREL, E. OF PENNSYLVANIA & W.
Of TURNERS CROSSROAD
NATURAL AREAS
~
~
~
INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL, TERMINAL
WAREHOUSE AND RADIO
LI GHT I NDUSTR I AL
~
COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
-
-
1-'
-00"
--.
-oos..
-000>
000<
0011
.
.
.
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 for a 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 town homes, 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 THe 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 Commission ...
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 of the 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
lots 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 qf 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 at this 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.D provides
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 staffs 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 that the 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 about the landscaping of each , .-
of the lots. A reforestation plan will be required as part of the final plan.
11. Staff will be proposing that the City Council ask the Minnesota DNR to
restrict Twin Lake to non-motorized boats with a possible exception for
electric motors. The bridge to the peninsula must be designed to allow
easy portage of canoes and other small boats between Sweeney and
Twin Lakes.
The Planning staff recommends that resolution of the issues raised in the entire
Oliver memo be made a condition of approval of this preliminary design plan. This
will indicate to the City Council that the Planning Commissions believes these
matters must be addressed prior to approval of the General Plan of Development.
Development of the Peninsula -- Although the peninsula area between Twin and
Sweeney Lakes is relatively small (about 9 acres) in relation to the entire project, the
development of the peninsula has raised the greatest number of issues. As
indicated on the site plan, the developer is proposing ten single family lots on the
peninsula. Access to those lots will be from a bridge over the opening between the
two lakes. As noted in the Oliver memo, any plans for upgrading the bridge will
have to be approved by the. City. Currently, the peninsula holds one house, Which
the developer plans to remove. This house was once the residence of the hospital
administrator for the former Glenwood Hills Hospital. .
The development of the peninsula must be in compliance with the City's Shoreland
Management code, which is part of the zoning chapter of City Code. The Shoreland
Management code was adopted by the City in the mid-1980's as required by the
State of Minnesota. Its purpose is to regulate the subdivision, use and development
of shoreland in Golden Valley in order to preserve and enhance the quality of
surface waters, preserve the economic and natural environmental values of the
shorelands, and provide for the wise utilization of waters and related land resources.
The City of Golden Valley is responsible for enforcement. The DNR has the right to
approve a PUD on DNR protected waters. In this case, Sweeney and Twin Lakes
are protected waters. Therefore, the DNR will give final review to the PUD
development plans. The DNR has already been notified of this proposed
development. Since adoption of the Shoreland Management code by the City, the
State has established newer, more stringent standards. The City of Golden Valley
has yet to adopt these new standards. However, the DNR did apply them in its
review of the EAW for Hidden Lakes.
The proposed peninsula development has been reviewed by the City and other
agencies, including the DNR as part of the EAW process. The plan that was
reviewed by the DNR is the same as the preliminary design plan. 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
.
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 "soften" 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 ma~erials 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 of the 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 developer 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 opinion that 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:
liThe 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 about 2.6
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 STANDARD 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. In the
case of Hidden Lakes, the number of variances are so numerous the staff has
chosen not to 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 staffs 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
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 development that 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
-
\
\
: :&.,1
}1:~r-7 _
~ ~
~.~.~ ~
~ i, '0
l-ot.r :
~':'J'. 1
::n\i~
~~~.~-!
~ 1.~ ~
I.
~
-
~
"
..
:!!
~
.
...
--
I
I~
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
FEBRUARY 13, 1997
MARK GRIMES
DIRECTOR OF PlAN iriNG , D DEVELOPMENT
JEFF OLIVER, P.E.:...,(
ASSISTANT CITY ~I ER
SUBJECT:
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR HIDDEN LAKES P.U.D.
Engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed Hidden
Lakes Planned Unit Development. Based 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 northern 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 turning 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 turning 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 accommodate this design vehicle is summarized as
follows:
a) The 45 foot radius on the cul-de-sacs is just large enough to
accommodate the turning 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 turn 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 easemenlwould 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 lakes, 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 be a 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 kiIJ adjacent trees,
or lower water levels that would threaten the viability of the wetland.
An analysis should be performed indicating if water levels wiIJ 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 wiIJ 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 concerns.
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 alternatives 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.
7. . The 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
.
.
.
.
desired. The City also reserves the right to require additional
conservation easements during final review of the PUD.
2.
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 THe
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 reserves the right to have specialized consultants review
portions of the PUD and construction plans. The developer will be
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.
f .. D. -, 'f ]; 11'1 U I \ I il.1. U,)
D...> I. I.'\. f !JrlllrIUI11\
lC,u'O!,- ,),)';1 00';11
r. UUL.
.
RODEU L. CBO:iO~
l.J:Ox->'JUl ~!. .".DD1~C;TON
ROl1EST R. ~u
~. ""^! om GI'""",
"u.u.~ D. :fl..\xs..I..IW
R.tcs:...1o:J) h. P..-n:!l:;ON
RODEllI' J. Cll&JSTlANSOl'. JI'.
1"1<...."'" J.W..,.;r.
r~"'li \'OC'L
~1"\lI~ "" \,'. \'..,.; 1'I;'rno:1'I. Jr..
D...,"UI D. ~!O~J:
JClm\' .\. DL"BTON, JI1.
J....'(J:~ C. Dllc-,cu:s
RODEliT L. ~!l!tJ.llu. J~.
J t.,])lTIt A. ROC:OSIIl!SIU~
Sc;orr D. El.I.r:l;
Cu.uu IlS C. Dl::UUul:;-r
E.Jo>'IlI'U W'AVl!
C;ImCO~Y D. !;Oll1."
CAnJ"l' 1::. (iOIW~
)'A"M:IC~" ft Hr.sS'I~~:S:v
TI:O<OTllY./I. SI:I.I.I\'"",
lllu....'" F. Hlc!::
D"''''I'''I- ~. W. Kr.,"",o'"
T.....", J. v..'" S.....:"1Il0lmOH
n..\'1U J. %\.;r",."
S.~",..._... n. !\f!I:c.,m
..l""'Il~ l~ ~h""r.I""
PA"r. .E. x...~l:--:"I"
')0,." 1'. HIJ"L~
Ross C.1'o":'II:I.,.
CII1IYl' S. GI.UVIlIf
MdlV f-:. SllP.\RRN'
tlM.n....., M" no""
BEST & FLANAGAN
PruIos:iiul1llllWilAld I.illbili~ Plll\l\ershil'
4000 FIRST .B_-\.:~m: PLQ"CJ:;
601 SECOND A'\'"!:::s'UE SOt:TH
~h.x ,:>;.t;..U>Ol..l::;, ~!IlSNI:SOT.,
5540:2 - 4.1:11
:<10Rlt1S E. !\NoPIl'
C:.\'(b..rdll:E .r. COt."'IZT:oIJn'
J 11.1. 1'1. w...)RR
T....c:'\. !'. Koctlp'),'])Otd'eJl
.1:!.Llo~-:Cl!. M. Rl!%lI:l(G
SAKAI! CJ>.II"'''K :<14111><01'1
Rollt:lrr D. M.a.1II::JI
DII"'D 11. JOlJl'I~U:<
\\"UJ.JAH J. MOJ("I~
l'!ICIIAt:I, tl. !'Pll(
Or C(l~","'"
\\ARD D. I..J:''''U;
.hJlCllllU.JJ) SJ.oJllNCJW
ROBEM' lot S~
JOKl. R.c...xl1Ol.I.
J......_, 1). OL....()~
E:lTTP' / / '~~\,-. BJ:!:STLAW. COM
(612) :);39-71~1
F^X (612) :):)~-(II)')7
.r...lIIl'_'" I. BEST
190:-Ip,r,~
Romatr J. FU.'lACW/
1G!lG-IO'.
Direct Dial No.
341-9715
February 24, 1997
VIA F ACSIMn..E AND MAn..
.
Mr. Mark Grimes
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MiImesota 55427
RE: Hidden Lakes PUD Amendment Application
Dear Mark:
You have asked me to review the issue of whether the Hidden Lakes PUD amendment
was appropriate under the City Zoning Code.
In my opinion the Hidden Lakes application for a PUD amendment is allowed under
the Zoning Code for two different reasons set out below.
1. The application is for an amendment of an existing institutional PUD. The
application seeks to change some of the institutional components of the existing PUD to
residential leaving some of the existing institutional components in place. There is no
question that this is allowable under the City Zoning Code and is an appropriate application
of the PUD aspects of the Code to this particular development.
.
2. The Hidden Lakes application is appropriate and allowable as an amendmem
also under the definition of PUDs and City Code Section 11.55, subd. 2.a.5, which provides
in pan that "developments having two or more principal use structures located on two or
more lots either in single or multiple ownership II are eligible for PUD application and the
combined area totals one or more acres. The Hidden Lakes proposal meets this defmition as
well.
\ ~'1/
tt.b. -,'I 'ji (IVIVI~1 l~;U.) bl:..)1 IX rLr\I~r\\.Jr\I~
.
.
.
IC.L.O!~ ,),)'1 ;JO'1i
Mr. Mark Grimes
February 24, 1997
Page 2
Accordingly, I have concluded that the Hidden Lakes PUD amendment application is
appropriate and allowable under our existing City Code sections.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes.
Allen D. Barnard
adb\43394.1tr
r. uu.)
~~'V
.COURAGE
.
~
'u '''''_
;..11.......
.~:u'-,"--L
:""':C2J
.
Courage Center IS a
non.' amzatlon
that rehabilitation.
ennc , ". Indepenaent living.
vocatiDnal and educational
services to emoower people
with physical disabilities and
sensory impairments to achieve
their full potentiaL
Equal Opportunity Provider
A United Way AtJeOOf
c
E
N
T
E
R
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, City of Golden Valley
City Council, City of Golden Valley
Dave PhilliP~
February 19, 1997
FROM:
DATE:
Courage Center is a member of the Planned Unit Development for the new
Hidden Lakes project. Because their project impacts our facility access and
parking, we have worked closely with them since the beginning of the
development. The Hidden Lakes staff have been sensitive to our needs and
the proposed plan can work well for Courage Center.
The improvements that they are recommending regarding the entrance at
Golden Valley Road and the streetscape of Golden Valley Road will be
welcomed by Courage Center.
We will continue to watch the development of this property very closely but,
to this date, we are satisfied that the development will be a good neighbor for
us.
dap/memos /hidnlake
.
.
.
.!!!~
A Subsidiary of lransitional Hospitals Corporation
February 20, 1997
RECE\\JED
,fE6 24-\997
William Joynes, City Manager
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
Dear City Manager Joynes:
The Hidden Lakes Development proposal, currently under consideration by the Golden Valley
City Council, deserves your support. It is a thoughtful, respectful project which will positively
affect the neighboring businesses and homeowners as well as the community at large. The
planning on this project has been comprehensive. The developer has worked cooperatively with
neighbors and city officials and has been responsive to our concerns.
No facility is more significantly affected by the proposed development than the Transitional
Hospital of Minneapolis. We are located at the southern end of the property. Our employees,
patients, and visitors will have to pass through the new development to access our building. The
improvements to roadways, aesthetics, safety and the environment are many. The potential
economic impact appears to be extremely positive.
Hidden Lakes Development is presenting us with what we believe to be a good opportunity.
Sincerely,
~;j1#
Patrick A. Auman, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
4101 Golden valley Road. Golden valley. Minnesota 55422
ANOICA/COON RAPIDS
OFFICES
Zog. Mercy Health Care Center
3960 Coon Rapids Boulevard
Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433-2577
Phone (612) 427-8320
FA~27-1243
B LEOFFICES
185 Ri geview Medical Building
305 Nicollet Boulevard
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337-4570
Phone (612) 435-8516
FAX (612) 435-8518
EDINA OFFICES
200 Fairview Physicians Building
6363 France Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435-2145
Phone (612) 920-7200
FAX (612) 920-1708
ADMINISTRATION
Ellis A. Olson, FACMPE
Executive Director
ADULT NEUROLOGY
Ingrid Abols, M.D.
James R. Allen, M.D.
Irian M. Altafullab, M.D.
Ivan L. Brodsky, M.D.
Charles W. Hall. M.D.
Jessica O. Heiring, M.D.
Charles H. Horowitz, M.D.
Jack E. Hubbard, Ph.D., M.D.
Maland C. HWT, M.D.
Bruce I. ldelkope, M.D.
Allan P. Ingertito, M.D.
Rafael Magana, M.D.
Mark Mandelbaum. M.D.
Thomas L. Murphy, M.D.
Bruce A. Norback. M.D.
Karen G. Porth, M.D.
Damel C. Randa, M.D.
Joanne B. Rogin, M.D.
Crispin E. See, M.D.
Paul M. Silverstein, M.D.
Stan.. Sldnner, M.D.
B nyder, M.D.
S Stein. M.D.
F . T. Strobl, M.D.
John E. Trusheirn, M.D.
Felix Zwiebel. M.D.
PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGY
Armantina M. Espinosa. M.D.
Kathryn H. Green. M.D.. Ph.D.
Allan P. Ingertito. M.D.
John T. MacDonald, M.D.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Steven F. Morgan. Ph.D.
PSYCHOLOGY
Patricia J. Aletky. Ph.D., LP
Ralph E. McKinney, Ph.D., LP
Denise Nelson. M.S.W., LP
Sherman E. Nelson. Ph.D., LP
Glenna M. Schroeder, Ph.D., LP
Charlaine J. Skeel. Psy.D., LP
SOCIAL WORK
Elizabeth Nager, UCSW
ANCILLARY SERVICES
Compnehensive Rehabilitation Services
Electroencephalography (EEG)
Electromyography (EMG)
Evoked Potentials (EP)
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRl)
AFFILIATED CONSULTANTS
ADULT NEUROLOGY
Lawrence Schut, M.D.
NEURO-OPHTHALMOLOGY
Jonathan WUlSChafter. M.D.
.
The Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology, Ltd.
MINNEAPOLIS OFFICES
301 VIrgirtia Piper Building
800 East 28th Slreel
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55407-3723
Phone (612) 863-4070
FAX (612)863-3407
PLYMOUTH OFFICES
West Health Medical Building
2855 Campus Drive. Suite 530
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441-2616
Phone (612) 577-7575
February 17, 1997
GOLDEN VALLEY OFFICES
4225 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422-4297
Phone (612) 588-0661
General FAX (612) 287-2318
Administration FAX (612) 287-2303
ST. LOUIS PARK OFFICES
W-414 Meadowbrook Office Building
6490 Excelsior Boulevard
51. Louis Park. Minnesota 55426-4710
Phone (612) 922-3317
FAX (612) 922-1737
Hon. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor
City of Golden Valley
City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
~'Cc.\\!~O
~-c; ,\.-
\ q \<\ql
~t~.
Dear Mayor Anderson:
For several years we have deliberated and considered various alternatives which have
been proposed or suggested for development of the property. formerly occupied by
Golden Valley Health Center, our contiguous neighbors to our southeast. Since this
property has remained essentially vacant for several years (with the exception of
THC), the four or five buildings which remain on the old GVHC campus are
deteriorating and have become a significant aesthetic detraction from our lake
environment. This will eventually negatively affect the value of our property if not
corrected soon. Since this greatly concerns us, we have been very interested in the
plans and progress of the Hidden Lakes development project.
Of the several proposed uses of this very attractive and strategically located property,
the plan that has been proposed, in its significantly scaled back form, seems to be the
best and highest use for this property that we have seen to date. While we realize and
appreciate that some of the residents located along the west shore of Sweeney Lake
are concerned about the environmental and aesthetic impact of placing houses on and
developing the east lake shore peninsula, we feel that the development, as amended,
will protect the environment, will have a positive impact on the entire area (much
better than the currently deteriorating buildings) and, hopefully, will add several
forms of value to our community.
Although we are not specifically knowledgeable regarding property taxation issues,
we have been led to believe that it will add a significant tax base to the Golden
Valley community for support of other improvements, including schools. In
addition to a general improvement in the appearance and value of our neighborhood,
we expect to derive benefit from the planned improvements to the entrances of our
property from Golden Valley Road. As has been explained and provided in detailed
drawings and architectural renderings, it appears, if properly executed, the Hidden
Lakes Development will provide an updated ingress, prominent signage, and
42 Years of Excellence 1955 - 1997
A Member of Minnesota Specialty Physicians
,~'V
.
significantly improved landscaping along our eastern property line.
In conclusion, we feel that the Hidden Lakes Development, carried out according to
the plans that have been provided to date, should be a significant asset to our
neighborhood and our entire community. We encourage your support of the project.
Sincerely,
Ellis A. Olson
Executive Director
EAO:ks
.
.
'JJb1,
.
.
.
February /5',1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Rt.Ct.\\Jt.D
1\ 6r \~ql
\~~~ "
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We 3re !"~sirle!!ts I)f Golrlen Valley who Uve ne~r Theodore Wirth Pg:-k am!
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) bu-ildia~IttJlBI1' .h9Ble50D the bluer 8vulouki~.~ T w ;1I~e;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or UDder the bridg~.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
. The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area - either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed with lighted softball fields for adults.
vta>t-
We ariMtlso offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
~. ~. C ?..; C::/.,-/~_~i'~JL
v /f/J/~ --dOl ./~~ ;~'l:-
Golden V aIFe'y, MN '
Name:
Address:
.
.
.
February /'7 , 1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
C, t.. \\1 t.. \)
~~ bt \~1.
~t~t
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents of Golcen VaHey who live near Theodore W;rth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
. destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area - either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. H it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed with lighted softball fields for adults.
.,A;&;( I I'
We are alsaioffended by the developer's proposal to create an u tra-exc uSlve
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
Name:
Address:
.
.
.
February 15--:1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
~~\)
~~C<(). \~~\
,q
~t~.
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents of Golden Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and
Twin Lake, ~;rhkh we ~"jvy. \Vc GjJpuse every feature ofine Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area -- either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed with lighted softball fields for adults.
We are also offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
Name:
Address:
6- . A v tJ. C k -/ L &, 11ctv t r;'
I/of ~/II/'s r/4r c_
Golden Valley, MN
J- c;(ISo 9()'e'st-;ofJ +lle. v41,'cJ, 7 of -fh~ zitw .J-;"+5 ret/~u.J f',oce'sS.
.
February 15, 1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Golden V alley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
\'-1 t.. Q
'\l.'t.C,'t: , q ,qq1
~t~.
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents of Golden Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. W-e OpPQ~e every feature of the Hidden Lnk~~
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
.
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and _
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area -- either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed with Ii~hted softball fields for adults.
We are also otTended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
~:::.s: ~~~7t,f ~;(~~ elf/hJ+e--
. . Golden Valley, MN
J-.j~;.J~r; 61'~~J' '" , 1 h)-fl. (. NJA~,< 4< t -16" (' ('3,1 , .Js:
.if.~' I J . J,~~~
r I
February 20, 1997
.
Mayor Mary Anderson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
t.CE..\\JE..D
R ~
Vt~ '2. 4 \~q
Madam Mayor:
We are residents of Golden Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and Twin Lake,
which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes Development that will
adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
1) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin Lake
and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
2) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
3) filling wetlands; and
4) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty, the seclusion
and, above all, the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open natural area - either as
privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal open
space, it should be protected from park developmenfby a perpetual, restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation in which land that was donated to the city for a nature preserve
is being developed with lighted softball fields for adults.
We are also offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the area,
private streets throughout the neighborhood, and a locked gate on the road leading to
the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes Development by
refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
Sin~erely,
,: -,../'( +; / -:, -:: ~.' ... "t. ~............... < P~''IS'' . ..:-~ ',,,,,-, ~~
.. (.:. ~h /k'"~~~ ._.^,-~ --.::~ . ~---"'_'-,,\...: _ '--.'\.-.,)
L ....
Charles M. Silverman and Anna R. Silverman
. 1825 Major Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
.
February D1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
· Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
· Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
\\It.-\)
't'~C~ n
,q ,qq
~t~.
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents of Golden Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
.
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
. the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area -- either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City fora nature
preserve i~ bp.ing deve!l)ped ~ith Iight.~~ ~{.\m~~!! f:~!d~ feF' 2d~!t~.
We are also offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow a new co struction on~e peninsula. .'" h .
Name: tZ~ d..J J,?VJ '.-'ID.dD ~tJ, (:Jl ""d?1 D
Address: - ~ ;;C~ J
Golden Valley,
~.~ laP U~ <;.~ t!2.h~ 'fU.\ ~ M~:
~~~ ~ h1L -c:fL0; dU~i~
1lM-J: ~ ~ 1'1An+ccHiA'1/ O.j2"1V.~ lj-u. .f.),
.
.
.
February ..11, 1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
. v....iJ
;,....v.....
,ft~ '2. 6, \qql
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents of Golden Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely atTect Twin Lake, especially:
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the blutT overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area -- either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed with lighted softball fields for adults.
We are also otTended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
/} ,/. , /} I
~-r " .
.1.,4 1/'..&
Golden Valley, MN "
Name:
Address:
.
.
.
February~, 1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Council member Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
C ~..\'-J t.. \)
~~ br \~q1
'It.~ '2.
\
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents or Golden Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area - either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed with lighted softball fields for adults.
We are also offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refU:::~ aDow (~ew constru:j :: Ibe peninsubL
Address: ~?~r-
Golden Valley, MN
.
.
February n 1997
TO: Mayor Mary Andenon
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Jobnson
.-'t.\\Jt.O
\{t.'v
\fl~ ~ ~ \qql
Madam Mayor and Councilmemben:
We are residents of Golden Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We Oppose every feature of'the Hidden Lakes
Development that will advenely affect Twin Lak~ especially:
.
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury bomes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake wiD be
destroyed forever.
..
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area - either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. H it becomes municipal
open spac~ it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We sbould not repeat tbe Scbaper
Natural Area situation, in whicb land tbat was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed witb lighted softbaU fields for adults.
We are also offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into tbe
area, private streets tbrougbout the neigbborbood and a locked gate on tbe road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
Name: . QR'1 ~CJJ
Address: IX'~() N~,~ IE. PR,~E
Golden Valley, MN
.
.
.
February /5': 1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson \)
.. \"~
~~c,~ br \C\C\1
~tCO ~
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents ofGold~n Valley who live near Theodore Wirth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area - either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. H it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being developed wi..h lighted sofibaii fields for adults.
We are also offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
Name:
Address:
~~
I 0 ;I(),.......
Golden Valley, M
.
.
.
February IS: 1997
TO: Mayor Mary Anderson
Councilmember Jan LeSuer
Councilmember Joan Russell
Councilmember Martha Micks
Councilmember Gloria Johnson
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
\~~.:O
~~C~ br \t'tt't1
~~~ 't
Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are residents of Gcld~n Yaney who live near Theodore 'Virth Park and
Twin Lake, which we enjoy. We oppose every feature of the Hidden Lakes
Development that will adversely affect Twin Lake, especially:
(a) the installation of new luxury homes on the peninsula between Twin
Lake and Sweeney Lake and the road to serve them;
(b) building luxury homes on the bluff overlooking Twin Lake;
(c) filling wetlands; and
(d) preventing the public from passing between Sweeney Lake and Twin
Lake over the peninsula or under the bridge.
The development's impact on Twin Lake will be devastating. The beauty,
the seclusion and (above all) the environmental quality of Twin Lake will be
destroyed forever.
The peninsula should remain as an undeveloped, open, natural area _ either
as privately owned open space or as municipal open space. If it becomes municipal
open space, it should be protected from park development by a perpetual restrictive
covenant in favor of the neighboring properties. We should not repeat the Schaper
Natural Area situation, in which land that was donated to the City for a nature
preserve is being deveioped with iighted softball fields for adults.
We a~{so offended by the developer's proposal to create an ultra-exclusive
neighborhood with a guardhouse at the bridge on the one road leading into the
area, private streets throughout the neighborhood and a locked gate on the road
leading to the homes on the peninsula.
The City Council should protect Twin Lake from the Hidden Lakes
Development by refusing to allow any new construction on the peninsula.
. fJf f?
/. h
. /'"'\" .
. Name: . f" /-:-'/.'-i-- "\ (
Address: ~/ I r7 '" ~ ~~ /../.h+r)
Golden Valley, . /.