Loading...
04-23-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 23, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, and Shaffer. Commissioner Rasmussen was absent. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - April 9, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 9, 2001 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Amendment Applicant Hidden Lakes Development, LP Address: Block 5 and Block 9, Outlots F and M, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of 7 single family homes on Block 5, and 10 single family villa homes on Block 9, Outlots F and M. Chair Pentel outlined the process for conducting the public hearing and introduced the applicant's request. Grimes reviewed his staff report regarding the requested amendment to Planned Unit Development number 74. Grimes referred to the site map pointing out that it is located South of Golden Valley Road near the Courage Center. When this PUD was approved in 1997 the peninsula was not included in the PUD other than allowing the existing home on the peninsula to remain. The other amendment area is along Block 9, which was previously planned for the construction of one carriage home, which would have two units in it. Now they have changed their minds and would like to construct Golf Villa homes in that location, which are similar to the ones on Skyline Drive. Pentel asked Grimes to point out the street names and to clarify what's referred to as Block One and Block 2. Grimes pointed out the streets. Grimes referred to the original PUD Master Permit that affects the entire PUD and the sub-permits, which affect the various portions of the PUD such as the golf villa homes, the town homes and the single-family homes. He stated the two proposed amendments would require changes to several sections of the existing PUD permit. The master permit Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 2 indicates that the peninsula may be used only for one single-family home and outlot M was left vacant for the potential development of the carriage homes. The sub-permit for the peninsula states that an amendment to the sub-permit to allow additional development may be applied for when the conditions found in the minutes of a Special Meeting of the City Council from June 19, 1997 are met. Grimes first discussed the Golf Villa Homes on Block 9, Lots 1 and 2; and on Outlot M. He stated that Hidden Lakes Development has decided not to construct carriage homes as originally proposed in 1997 and instead are proposing the construction of ten golf villa homes. Grimes stated the lots they are proposing are about 50 feet wide and 108 feet deep, about 5,100 square feet in area. He stated the homes that are being proposed will be about 38 feet wide and 65 feet long and will have an attached two-car garage. He stated access to the golf villa homes will be from a one-way street off of Skyline Drive and will exit out onto Hidden Lakes Parkway. There will be no parking permitted on the street with exception to 8 spaces on the west side of the road for guest parking. He stated Staff feels this would be adequate parking for this area and that overall this is a good location for the golf villas. Grimes referred to the City Engineers memo related to grading, drainage, and erosion control and stated that the runoff from proposed Block 2 will be routed north into an existing pond on the Courage Center property and the utility services will be from extensions to existing utility mains in the area. He stated a tree preservation plan has been submitted and noted the tree preservation ordinance was passed since this PUD was adopted. He stated when the original PUD was approved in 1997 the City didn't have a tree preservation ordinance. However, the City is now requiring that they now comply with the tree preservation ordinance. Pentel asked how the setting of these homes deviates from the subdivision code. in regards to setbacks, lot size and variances required. Grimes stated all of Hidden Lakes is on private streets and that there isn't a public street adjacent to this piece of property. He stated that normally the City requires single-family lots in the residential zoning district to have 80 feet of width and 10,000 square feet of area. The front set back from a public street is normally 35 feet. Side yard setbacks on 80-foot lots are about 12 % feet or 15% of the lot width. Rear yard setbacks are 20% of the lot depth. In this case, the lots are about 105 feet deep so they would require a 20-foot setback. They are proposing 15 feet in the front and back. Shaffer asked what the proposal is for outlots B&C. Grimes stated it would probably remain common open space. Shaffer asked if the same layout would work if the houses weren't in a linear pattern. Shaffer stated he is concerned about the houses being so close to each other and that with the way they are lined up it will be visible from Golden Valley Road and would look like townhouses. He questioned if there was a way to redesign it so it doesn't look like one building. Grimes stated that that would be a question for the developer but that they were trying to do something similar to the other Golf Villas in the area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 3 Grimes next discussed the lots on the peninsula. He stated that in 1997 Hidden Lakes had originally proposed the development of the peninsula, however when it went to the City Council it was taken off of consideration and the Council approved the PUD without the development of the peninsula indicating they could come back with plans for developing the peninsula if certain conditions were met. Grimes stated that the five conditions are part of the PUD permit and that Staff has found that each condition has been met. Grimes briefly outlined the conditions. The first condition is all environmental and other information related to the development on the peninsula has been assembled and provided to the City. He stated staff that has received all information related to environmental issues and that much of this information was provided as part of the EAW process that was done in 1997. The findings indicated that no substantial environmental harm would be caused by the Hidden Lakes Development, including the peninsula. The second condition is all due diligence and all care have been taken to address the issues regarding development on the peninsula including environmental issues. Grimes stated staff has received the information necessary to address development of the peninsula and the information submitted shows that the peninsula will be developed in an environmentally responsible manner. The third condition is all major grading and infrastructure on Phase I has been successfully completed and the developer has successfully complied with all related conditions of approval and requirements of environmental sensitivity on Phase I. Grimes stated all major grading and infrastructure improvements on Phase I have been completed and Hidden Lakes Development has received all necessary approvals and certifications from state agencies regarding cleanup of environmental pollution. The fourth condition is home building has been successfully completed on at least five lakeshore lots of Phase I. Grimes stated that according to the Inspections Department, this has been accomplished. The fifth condition is ten of the townhomes have been issued Certificates of Occupancy. Grimes stated that according to the Inspections Department, this has been accomplished. Grimes stated the City Council minutes from June 19, 1997 also indicate that when the plans are submitted to develop the peninsula, four criteria shall be used to determine if the plans are adequate. Grimes stated that staff has found that these four criteria have been met. The first criterion is all lots to be created shall exceed the minimum lot size and the average lot size shall be twice the minimum lot size established by the DNR in shoreland impact areas. Grimes stated that lots within a shoreland impact area must be at least 20,000 square feet in area. In the case of the seven lots being proposed for the peninsula, all lots exceed this and that the average size lot is well over twice the minimum set by the DNR. Grimes referred to a letter from Tom Hovey, Area Hydrologist for the DNR and stated that the letter indicates that the DNR has no permitting authority because all construction will be done above the ordinary high water mark for Sweeney and Twin Lakes and that the plans appear to be consistent with the City's shoreland management chapter of the zoning code and finds that it meets, or will meet the requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 4 The second criterion is that the private road be setback at least 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Grimes stated the private road would be at least 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark except where it nears the bridge, which was understood by the Council when the PUD was approved in 1997. The third criterion is that Hidden Lakes shall retain the services of a qualified geohydrologist to verify the location and number of seeps and springs and all of these features shall be protected by inclusion within the designated "no impact zone". Grimes stated a geohydrologist was hired and a report was prepared indicating the location of seeps and springs. These seeps and springs are all located within conservation easements and will not be affected by construction. The fourth criterion is that the City Engineer shall determine whether the lots to be created have adequate buildable area after all necessary land has been provided to accommodate storm water improvements, environmental easements, restrictions on woodland clearing and all other performance standards contained in Jeff Oliver's memo dated February 13, 1997. Grimes stated the City Engineer is confident that there is adequate room on the peninsula to accommodate seven lots along with necessary easements for improvements such as roads, conservation easements, storm water ponds, and tree preservation areas. Grimes stated staff has determined that the application for an amended PUD to allow development on the peninsula can go forward but it doesn't mean that the development will be approved without review. Grimes stated that the development of the peninsula would be restricted in a manner similar to the lakeshore lots in the other parts of Hidden Lakes. He stated they will have conservation easements protecting the shoreline of both Twin and Sweeney Lakes and only canoes or other hand-paddled boats will be allowed in Twin Lake and that the size of the docks on Twin and Sweeney Lakes will be restricted in the same manner as the home lots on Sweeney Lake and the east side of Twin Lake. Grimes stated that park dedication for the development of the peninsula must be addressed as outlined in the PUD permit on page 3, number 7. The permit states that "Ultimate development plans for the peninsula will be shaped by City decisions about park dedication, which may include a trail on a portion of the peninsula, as well as the relative weight that the City chooses to place on specific environmental features, characteristics, or objectives." He stated the City has to make a decision about park dedication on the peninsula. Grimes stated that the plans for the peninsula do not include a public trail or trail easement. He stated staff does not recommend that a trail run through or across the peninsula for several reasons. First, if there were a trail, it would have to be paved and be separate from the private road serving the seven homes. This would mean another 8- 9 feet of paved surface and therefore, additional runoff. Second, it would make the proposed lots narrower than they are now shown on the plan. Third, what would be the destination of the trail at the south end of the peninsula? There is currently a path in that area that runs to the end of Kilarney Drive. Grimes indicated on site plan the trail that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 5 City now has through the Hidden Lakes development connecting Golden Valley Road to Wirth Park and the future Hennepin Park trail. He stated there was a dedication of an easement over one lot toward the north end of the development that is now used for public access for non-motorized boats and there is a picnic area and a gazebo that will be constructed this spring. Grimes stated that staff is recommending that a cash dedication be made to the City for park dedication and anticipates that this cash will be used for the development of the Adeline Lane lot at the south end of Sweeney Lake. Grimes stated that staff is recommending approval of the preliminary design plan for proposed Block 1 and Block 2 and are asking that the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, the recommendation from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to have sprinkler systems in the homes, no physical park dedication and a portage crossing at the peninsula bridge be conditions of this approval. Grimes stated that part of the approval for park dedication was that there would be a trail connecting from the existing north/south trail to the peninsula along Island Drive and that would be constructed at the time there is development on the peninsula. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council would need to decide if there is a need for this trail if there is no trail on the peninsula. Pentel stated that public access along Island Drive is part of the PUD permit and it seems to her that that has to be addressed. She also stated there are many trails in Golden Valley that are on streets and that the City's paved trail system is much smaller than the on-street trails. Grimes stated that this trail would be off the street. He stated that the policy of the Council has been that all trails should not be on the street because of safety reasons. Pentel referred to Grimes' memo on page 4 in the first criterion where it talks about the proposed lots exceeding the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and asked if that is a DNR statute or a rule. Grimes stated it's a rule, not a statute. Pentel asked if there is anywhere else in Golden Valley where private roads are considered to be part of the adjoining lots. She said every other private road in Hidden Lakes is an outlot. Grimes stated he would have to look at a map to say for sure, but that the difference here is the property owners would own property on both sides of the road and would have access to Twin Lake on the other side of the private road so then you would be splitting their property by an outlot. They will have private property rights on both sides of the road. That's why it's kept as an easement rather than a dedication for the other property owners to enjoy. Eck referred to letters received from concerned citizens, which take exception to the hydrologists report in regard to the seeps and springs. These citizens hired a consultant of their own which indicates the recharge for these seeps and springs does not occur entirely offsite, but is, in fact, in part, recharged from the peninsula itself which means construction there would have an impact on the seeps and springs and asked Staff how Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 6 this report should be factored in. Grimes stated basically there are two hydrologists saying two different things, but the seeps and springs that have been identified are all in the no impact zone of the development. They are all within the 50-foot conservation easement where there is no construction planned at all. The engineer that originally looked at the site indicated that and felt that having the seeps and springs in the no impact zone was adequate. He did go on the site and walk the site. The engineer that the citizens hired did not get on the property and had not done an analysis of the site other than looking at it from a canoe. Eck stated that the citizen's letters also take exception with the way the high water line is calculated with regard to the seeps and springs and indicated that it should be calculated differently taking into account the location of the seeps and springs as influencing the location of the high water line. Grimes stated he spoke with Tom Hovey, the DNR area hydrologist and indicated the concerns Mr. Maynard had in his letter. Mr. Hovey indicated that determining the high water level using the sloping wetland definition does not fit for a lake and should be used when looking at a sloping wetland. Sweeney Lake is considered a lake and the high water mark is 827.7. This is a different category and he's not comparing apples to apples. Pentel referred to subdivision 11.65, subdivision 5 zoning provisions for shorelands and stated there is discussion about structure setbacks from ordinary high water marks that says where feasible and practical all roads and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements established for structures which would be 75 feet and in no instance shall these impervious services be placed less than fifty feet. She stated that the retaining wall at some points is going to be so tall that it will require a building permit. She asked if that indicates that perhaps the City is allowing a structure to be built closer than our ordinance would indicate that we should be building structures. She stated it's not a road and a building permit is going to be required to build this retaining wall. She asked how staff and Jeff Oliver looked at that. Grimes stated the reason the City requires a building permits for retaining walls over 4 feet in height is to make sure they are structurally sound. The reason the wall is being proposed there is to protect the shoreland and to have minimal disturbance along the 50-foot no impact zone. Pentel asked if the City has a no phosphate fertilizer requirement and stated that on page 7-14 in the Hidden Lakes plans it states that they will be reseeding the disturbed areas with a fertilizer type that may have up to 400 Ibs of phosphate per acre. Grimes stated that page 10 of the PUD permit says no phosphate will be used. Pentel asked how that is monitored. Grimes stated it's easier to monitor in this situation, because Hidden Lakes Development does all the maintenance for the entire development and isn't done on an individual basis. If that was indicated on the plans, it was a mistake and the permit would override that. Grimes referred to the area on the peninsula that is going to be maintained as a conservation easement to save a large grove of oak trees. Pentel asked if there would be additional conservation easements along the shoreline as well. Grimes stated yes, all along the shoreline there would be a conservation easement. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 7 Pentel stated that on page 4-14 of the Hidden Lakes plans, the proposed drainage and utility easement arrow is pointing to the wrong line. Grimes stated that all the drainage easements on the peninsula are going to be vacated and rededicated to go along the 1 DO-year flood elevation plan. Eck asked Grimes to talk about rain gardens and how they differ from ponding. Grimes stated it's an alternative form of storm water drainage and helps with filtration of the water before it drains into the water bodies, which in this case is Sweeney and Twin Lakes. He stated that basically, they are infiltration areas and the storm water drainage goes into these areas and infiltrates naturally into the soil. Rather than creating the large pond that was originally proposed on the end of the peninsula, there is a series of these rain gardens. He stated the rain gardens still require some more detailed discussions with the Engineering Department and with the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization and still have to be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Organization. He stated that the City has received positive comments on the rain gardens so far because it requires less impact on the area than digging ponds. Eck asked what keeps the rain gardens from becoming ponds. Grimes showed a drawing of a rain garden and explained that they are not as deep and they provide for infiltration through the soil rather than directly into a pond. Pentel stated it's not clear from the information they've received, what will happen in times of heavy rain and stated there's going to have to be some excavation and some moving of soil in order to create a difference in elevation between the rain gardens and the bodies of water they are to be cleaning the water for. Pentel asked if the runoff from all the impervious surfaces is going to be routed to the rain gardens. Grimes stated his understanding is that all the runoff would be routed to the rain gardens. Pentel asked how the runoff would get to the rain gardens. Grimes stated she would have to ask the developer for more details. Shaffer asked how much of the area on the peninsula is actually going to be disturbed. He stated the plans indicate that there's not going to be much disturbance, but he's concerned that the whole peninsula is going to be disturbed. Grimes stated there is going to be disturbance with this development and stated that page 7-14 on the grading plans indicate that there will be 1.65 acres of disturbed area and 7.82 acres of undisturbed area. Pentel stated when she reads the details on that same page she questions the total number of acres being disturbed especially if each house is going to be graded to what the road is. Shaffer asked if houses, driveways, roadways, etc. are included in the total impervious surface. Grimes stated roadways, driveways and roofs are included. Hoffman referred to a letter from a citizen, which stated that the Minneapolis Park Board determined in 1980 that soils on the peninsula are unsuitable for development and that development would risk major environmental damage to the water quality. He asked if the developer is aware of this statement. Grimes stated that there are some soils on the peninsula and throughout the rest of the Hidden Lakes project that have less then suitable soil. However, in speaking with the engineers, when using proper construction techniques those issues can be resolved. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23,2008 Page 8 Groger asked for clarification on the shaded areas on page 4-14 of the plans. Grimes stated the shaded areas are the buildable areas. Groger stated the homes seem to be very close to the roadway. Grimes stated the requirements of the PUD ordinance state that no structure can be any closer than 15 feet from the roadway. Groger asked if the structures could be further away. Grimes stated the Planning Commission and Council could designate areas where the footprint of the building can go on each of these lots. Groger stated lot 6 doesn't show much, if any, of a driveway. Grimes stated one of things he would like to see is that there be 20-foot driveways. Groger talked about the parking concerns at Hidden Lakes now and asked if there will be parking along the easement area. Grimes stated there will be parking for 4-5 cars along the easement area and most of the homes will have 3 car garages which will allow more room for parking. He stated the more parking, the more impervious surface there is. He also stated there would be no parking along the street, because it's only 16-20 feet wide. (With the exception near the tree conservation easement.) Shaffer asked why the 20-foot wide street near the golf villas is a one-way street. He stated that it sounded like from Jeff Oliver's report that it needed to be one-way because it was 20 feet wide. Grimes stated that the Public Safety Director wanted the radius of the curve for emergency access. Shaffer asked why the road on the peninsula is less than 16 feet and it's a two-way road and stated he was concerned about the width of the road and two cars being able to pass each other. Grimes stated an option would be to have them widen the roads. Groger stated the Commission could have them increase the width of the road and minimize the size of the house on lot five where the road tapers to 16 feet. Pentel asked ifit is a private road, who will be allowed to park there. Grimes stated he believed that access is going to be restricted. Shaffer asked if the conservation monuments are used within the individual lots as well. He asked when the individual homeowners have 30% that they are allowed to develop up to the lake who protects the rest of the 70%. Grimes stated that there is an agreement between the homeowner association and the homeowner that the area can't be disturbed other than 30% of the lakeshore. Shaffer asked if there are monuments at each lot. Grimes stated it would be monumented at every other lot line. John Uban, Principal at Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban, gave a presentation about the development of the peninsula. He showed an area map and discussed the variety of housing types that have been built so far at Hidden Lakes. He stated that he feels they've shown that they really can do the environmental protection that people are concerned about. He stated there was about 8 million dollars worth of environmental clean up, with no expense to the City or any other public agency, because of what was thought to have been a polluted area. He showed an aerial photo of the Hidden Lakes site and showed that there was no significant impact to the surrounding waters and stated that all the run-off has been directed toward a ponding system on the interior of the development to catch the impact during the grading portion of developing. He stated they've followed all the regulations of the City, the DNR, and Watershed district to make sure this is a quality development. He stated that one benefit to the City is over $600,000 in tax dollars and a projected $1.6 million when the development is done. He stated the roads are private and the City won't Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 9 be spending money on maintenance and additionally, the development has a set of amenities to provide recreation such as the trail running north/south, a tot lot, a canoe launch, an arbor system and a bridge to connect the peninsula. Pentel asked if the bridge would be rebuilt. Uban stated that it would be. Pentel asked how the utilities would be routed from the main development to the peninsula. Aaron Hemquist, RLK stated that they are proposing to run the sanitary lines under the lakebed as opposed to running them under the bridge as they currently are now. Uban stated the bridge is proposed to have fishing platforms on either side. In addition, it will accommodate canoeing. Hoffman asked if the bridge is only a walking bridge. Pentel stated no, that's the way cars get to the peninsula. Pentel asked about the lake improvements on Sweeney Lake and attaching them somehow to this development in the CIP. She wanted clarification why the link was being made between park dedication by Hidden Lakes when the funding is already showing up in the Capital Improvement Plan. Grimes stated that a suggestion was made at staff meetings, that because the Adeline Lane Lot is on Sweeney Lake, the funding from this park dedication can be used to help fund that project and parks throughout the City. Pentel stated that in the PUD ordinance it states that there will be a trail that comes down Island Drive to the bridge and asked if there will be public access to the bridge. Uban stated that ideally they would like to have an informal, more natural trail coming down to the bridge. Uban referred to a map of the site that showed completed lots, sold lots, reserved lots and available lots. He stated that the golf villa homes are lined up in a row because of a utility line that goes along the front edge of the driveways. Also with the architecture, they are meant to sit side-by-side, but there will be a variety in elevation and height. Also, the golf villa homes are close together so they won't lose any of the green space and they are built to the same standards as the other golf villas in the area. Uban stated that in 1997 they had looked at having 10 lots on the peninsula, that was also the number and arrangement of lots considered and studied in the EAW, but after hearing many concerns, they have seriously changed the plans. He referred to a map showing the lot comparison between 16 lots, 10 lots and 7 lots and stated that the lots on the Sweeney lake side have an average of 330 feet of lakeshore frontage per lot. They have almost 2/3 of a mile of shoreline divided into 7 lots. He stated they have given each lot a very large area to accommodate a building and still provide a great deal of protection to the lake. He stated they've increased the no impact zone to 50 feet and stated that every suggestion, recommendation, and comment from the City has been reviewed and complied with. He discussed the rain gardens they've proposed and stated they are to replicate a much more natural system and require less excavation than ponds. Shaffer asked if there is maintenance required on the rain gardens. Uban stated there is some maintenance required, especially when they are first established and that is something that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 10 homeowners association or a landscape firm would take care of. Pentel asked how the water from the roofs and roads gets to the rain gardens. Uban stated they have a drainage system that pipes the water to the rain gardens. Pentel asked if there are overflow pipes in case the rain gardens fill. Uban stated there is a natural area for the water to spill into if the rain garden gets absolutely full. Uban stated they have surveyed all the trees and they are going to save as many oaks as they can but will be removing some ash, box elder, willow and some cottonwoods. Uban showed a map of the lake access easements and stated that Peterson Environmental has surveyed where all the seeps and springs are and that they all fall within the no impact zone and that they will all be preserved. Uban summarized by stating the City will gain the following things from this proposal: 1) The no impact zone has been increased to 50 feet which is more than required by the ordinance. 2) There are 7 lots being proposed as opposed to 10 or 16.3) There will be a private road, which minimizes the impact to the peninsula. 4) There is an exceptional tree preservation plan. 5) There is exceptional surface water management with rain gardens that replicate natural systems. 6) There is guaranteed protection of wooded areas. 7) There is unprecedented protection of seeps and springs, which are not required to be protected. 8) The steep slopes are being protected as if they were bluffs. 9) There is a tremendous increase in taxable value. Eck asked if there were any pictures or sketches of what these proposed homes will look like on the peninsula, how high they are and if they will face Hidden Lakes. Uban stated all these homes will be custom designed and doesn't think there will be a typical front and back to these homes, but that there would be a view from all directions. He stated they don't have any home designs yet, but would be happy to submit an example of what a home might look like. Eck stated that one of the main concerns among citizens in this area is the visual impact of these homes as well as the environmental concerns of the peninsula. Uban stated that the homes can't be pre- designed not knowing who is going to be buying the lots, but stated he could provide an example of how the homes may fit into the landscape. Eck asked how they intend to minimize the visual impact of the retaining wall. Uban stated that they will be able to plant on top, the road will be at the bottom, and they will be able to protect all the vegetation that exists between the road and the lake. There is also another five feet of no impact zone beyond the retaining wall that will be restored back to its natural character. Eck asked if the retaining wall would be visible from the Twin Lake side. Uban stated there may be a couple of spots where the retaining wall would be visible. Eck referred to letters the Planning Commission has received from current Hidden Lakes residents who are dissatisfied with water run off, maintenance, rubbish removal, landscaping, general upkeep, parking and snow removal. Eck asked the developer if he was aware of these complaints and if these were ongoing problems, and asked what is going to be done about these problems. Pentel asked if there has been a neighborhood meeting with all of the existing homeowners regarding this development. Bill Huser, Hidden Lakes Development, stated they do have meetings with the homeowners and explained the way the homeowner groups are structured. He stated that the association Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 11 is in a state of transition and the letters Eck referred to are from people that are living in the area where the townhouses are being built and that is creating a great deal of activity. He stated they do work extremely hard to deal with these issues and stated there is another association meeting coming up within the next week. Pentel asked for a description of snow storage that will occur on the peninsula and garbage removal from the peninsula area. Huser stated that there is one sanitary contractor that currently handles all of Hidden Lakes and they will handle the peninsula as well. He stated that there is also one contractor for snow removal and that snow would be removed from the peninsula to another part of the site, but that final details haven't been worked out yet. Pentel asked if lots will be graded to the elevation of the roadway and if the homes on the peninsula will have basements. Aaron Hemquist, RLK, stated that the subgrade elevation is roadway minus the pavement. The pavement section hasn't been determined yet, but the lots will be tapered into the roadway and some will be higher, some will be lower. The lots themselves will be graded to the back of the curb. Pentel referred to lots 3 and 5 and stated that the road at lot 3 sits at 838 feet and the road at lot 5 sits at 836 feet and the middle of that lot is 11 feet higher. Hemquist stated that they tried to match the roadway to the existing terrain and the houses will have to fit in. He stated he believes there would be basements excavated for these homes. Shaffer asked if the retaining wall is going to be a flat concrete wall. Huser stated no, it will be a textured wall and will fit in with the other walls that are in the development. He stated the wall being proposed would be a poured in place wall because it doesn't require as much sloping and it's much stronger. He stated that during the summer months, the vegetation is so dense that much of the wall won't be seen. Shaffer stated he noticed on the plans that there is construction within the drip line of the trees and asked for clarification on that. Uban stated it is ideal to stay out of the drip line, however, they intend to do precise root pruning and use fencing, trenching, fertilization and protection. Shaffer asked who controls how that happens on the individual lots later on. Uban stated the City has ordinances, and inspectors and the homeowner's association often times hire a landscaping firm to oversee this process. Groger referred to the conservation easements and stated that the lots on the peninsula would have easements potentially similar to those on the existing lake side lots which on the east side of Twin Lake allows for clearing of no more than 30% of the area extending inland 37 % feet from the shoreline. He asked what the experience has been on the east side of the lake and how much clearing took place. He asked what they would anticipate along the shorelines given the concern of the impact to both Sweeney and Twin Lakes. Huser referred to the site plan and referred to block 6 as an example. He stated the 37% feet conservation easement is based on DNR guidelines. He stated they work with individual buyers and put the conservation easements on each lot certificate so the home is being designed to achieve the least amount of impact to the shoreline and they are well Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 12 within the 30% allowed for clearing. Groger asked if they would have any objections to having a smaller percentage of potentially developable land along the shoreline. Huser stated that would be manageable and they are trying to select the best way for homeowners to have a trail to go to the lake that would have the least impact on the seeps and springs, the slope and the vegetation. Grimes showed pictures of two homes that are on Twin lake and showed the minimal impact to the lakeshore when a trail was added. Pentel asked if there is a maximum height requirement of 25 feet. Grimes stated the DNR has a guideline of 25 feet in shore land impact areas. It isn't in the City's shore land ordinance, it isn't adopted and isn't a law. Pentel asked if the City could decide to put a height limitation on the homes. Grimes stated they probably could if there are reasonable criteria. McAleese asked, if in the public hearing portion, they could separate speaking about the golf villas from the peninsula and speak about the golf villas first so people could feel free to leave if they only had questions about the villas and not the peninsula. Pentel agreed and opened the informal public hearing. Dr. Manley Rubin, 1425 Skyline Drive, stated that he lives in the golf villas that are there now. He stated when he purchased the lot he was told there would be one more home built where they are now proposing 10 new golf villas. He stated that the green area that is there now is the only green area they have and that there are a few dozen oak trees there that will have to go for driveways and homes. He.stated that the aesthetics are atrocious and the developers should be ashamed for trying to put ten homes when there isn't enough room. He stated there is only one entrance and exit and the reason there is only a one-way street being proposed is because there is no room for anything else. He also stated he was concerned about the availability of parking. Pentel asked if he could park two cars in his driveway. Rubin stated, yes, one behind the other, not side-by-side. Pentel asked how the snow removal was this past winter. Rubin stated he wasn't here this winter. Linda Keene, 1735 Waterford Court, stated she is concerned about the width of the street. She stated it's very difficult to get in and out of the cul-de-sac during construction and many times they have not had their mail delivered or their trash removed. She stated the concerns that were raised about the width of the road on the peninsula were valid. She stated she's concerned about the impact of construction equipment going up Hidden lakes Parkway and where they are going to put the equipment during construction. She stated that she didn't think Hidden lakes has a good plan, during construction if there were to be an emergency. She stated in the 11 months she's lived there, there have not been any all homeowners meetings. Pentel asked Grimes if he knew the width of Waterford Court. Grimes stated in order to have parking on one side it has to be at least 22 feet wide. Grimes stated that if there is parking on both sides of the street they should contact the Public Safety Department because there is only supposed to be parking on one side of the street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 13 Greg Klave, 600 Lilac Drive North, stated it would be a violation of the forest heritage regulation to take down the 12 oaks that are the golf villa site. He also stated concerns about the proposed homes being right next to a green way and stated there is obviously going to be golf balls taking off into the home area. He stated that he doesn't think it's being a good neighbor to the Theodore Wirth Golf Course to put homes so close to the green. Grimes stated that the sub-permit in 1997 did indicate that up to 10 additional units would be developed at a future date and would be located in the area that is being proposed for golf villas. McAleese disagreed and stated that this is a new look at the PUD and we aren't promising that it will be developed and the City can still decide. Grimes agreed, but thought these citizens should have been on notice that there was a plan for up to 12 units and now they are proposing 10 units. Nancy Azzam, 2300 Noble Avenue North, stated her biggest concern is water quality. She stated over development in Golden Valley has adversely affected every water body in the City except for Twin Lake. She stated she is against this proposal and urged the Planning Commission to leave the area alone. She stated that Barr engineering found that the water quality in Sweeney Lake is an unswimable level 5. She referred to the Highway 100 project and all the environmental promises MnDot made regarding how careful they would be in preventing erosion. She stated that they didn't keep their promises and now massive amounts of soil have moved to Golden Valley ponds and lakes. She talked about raw sewage being pumped into Bassett Creek due to a construction accident. She stated there is way too much development going on in Golden Valley and it's humanly impossible to oversee all these sites in any type of thorough way. She then listed all of the current projects going on in the City and asked that we leave Twin Lake the peninsula alone. Tom Zins, 8925 23rd Avenue North, stated he was asked to come to this Planning Commission meeting by Linda Loomis. He stated he serves on the Parks and Open Space Commission and stated that they would like to look at the proposal and have some formal input in the process. He stated that there has been inadequate land dedicated for public park purposes and that this lake belongs to everybody in the City. He stated he's concerned about the dedication being cash and not land. He stated the bottom line in developing the peninsula is that something more needs to be done than dedicating a few bucks and there needs to be some privilege access points for the public. McAleese asked when the next Parks and Open Space Commission meeting is. Zins stated their next meeting is in about a month. Hugh Maynard, 140 Spring Valley Road, stated he's been opposed to this project for 5-6 years. He discussed the buildability of the peninsula and showed a map prepared by land planner, Fred Hoisington four years ago that stated he looked at the setbacks and code widths and his findings showed that only 2 houses could be built honoring the normal setbacks. Maynard then talked about the protection of the 51 seeps and springs shown on the plans. He stated that his neighbors hired a hydrogeologist from Hennepin County to do an onsite investigation. He stated that the City was supposed to be given a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 14 full environmental report and the only thing he could find in City files was the report from February 1997. He stated that several years ago he was complaining that the dump on the mainland might be sending contamination into the lakes and into the springs. He stated that in 1999 the developer hired Braun Intertec who determined that the water flow is north into Bassett Creek and therefore, the source of water for the springs is entirely from the peninsula and not from any land east of Twin Lake. He stated that it's not enough to just not build on top of the springs, they have to stay off the recharge area, which is the whole peninsula. He then discussed the retaining wall and stated that it is about 750 feet long and on the grading plans there are a number of places where they calculated the height of the wall and the maximum height he saw was 12 feet tall. He showed a picture of himself standing against a 12-foot high wall and showed a 12-foot long board to illustrate the height of the retaining wall. He stated that the bottom of the wall is wetland and there will be no trees blocking the view of the retaining wall. Barney Rosen, 4820 Killarney Drive, stated he's enjoyed the two lakes on the peninsula actively for 67 years. He stated it makes him sick to hear people talking about environment and ecology and when they dig that peninsula, it's going to be a mound of dirt. He stated that there is mud pouring into Sweeney lake in torrents from the rain we've had and now the lake is brown. He stated a mistake was made with the ball field and asked the commission not to make a mistake with this proposal. Cori Of stead , 901 Parkview Terrace, stated she's been opposed the development from the beginning. She stated she did a door-to-door petition in 1997 to see if the neighbors wanted there to be any development of the peninsula. She stated that she got 1,028 signatures including 702 Golden Valley residents who were against any type of development. She said the developer stated that the opposition was only from people who lived on the lake. She showed a map indicating it wasn't just the people on the lake who are opposed to this development, but that people in Golden Valley in general are opposed. She stated she measured the peninsula and it went from 155 feet wide on some lots to 210 feet wide on the widest lot and stated that the peninsula wouldn't be wide enough to build these houses. Glen Helgeson, 901 Parkview Terrace, stated the developer is misrepresenting themselves to the City and to the public as to what they say they are going to do and what they've done. He also questioned the dimensions of the peninsula and stated the developer's measurements aren't accurate to what he has found. He recommended that an independent study be done as to the accurate dimensions. He stated he has seen no adequate information on the cubic feet of earth that is going to be taken out of the peninsula and that the developer is not including the driveway or house pads in their information. He stated that he's walked the site and questions the number of springs shown on the plans. He stated that a PCA did find 240,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil on the site in 1997. He stated the Planning Commission should question the developer and study this proposal. Hoffman asked about the contaminated soil Helgeson mentioned and stated that the developer did mention that they found asbestos on the site. Helgeson stated they weren't providing the information from the soil borings and stated the developer said minimal amounts of asbestos was found and questioned what minimal means. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 15 Faith Woodman, 1420 Spring Valley Road, stated she is opposed to the development of homes on the peninsula. She stated she has looked carefully at the grading plans proposed by the developer and that the plans indicate that 1.65 acres will be disturbed out of the 9.47 acres and that that's 17% of the entire peninsula. She showed a copy of the developers grading plan and stated the grading will be massive and if homes and driveways were included in the total percentage the amount would perhaps be 40%. She stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council need to know the total acres of land that will be disturbed so that they can evaluate the adverse impact to the peninsula and to the seeps and springs. She stated that for the Planning Commission to accurately determine the impact of developing the peninsula the developer should prepare eight cross sections, one for each home and one for the cul-de-sac turnaround to see how much earth is being lopped of the top of the peninsula, how much is being excavated for basements and how much fill is going to be added to create level pads for construction. She then showed an example of a cross section map and discussed the earth cut away and earth filled in. She stated that this is the most environmentally sensitive piece of property left in Golden Valley yet, the Planning Commission is being asked to waive most of the City's zoning and subdivision requirements and allow development without the normal safeguards afforded development elsewhere in the City. She stated that this project would not be good land management and should be denied. Bob Mattison, 1120 Angelo Drive, referred to the letter he sent to the Planning Commission and pointed out the language of the City Council resolution in 1997 that put the conditions on the approval of the development on the peninsula. He stated he's very upset about what's happened to Sweeney Lake and stated this development is not going to make it any better, but there's a significant chance that it will make it worse. He stated he's concerned that the Council is going to think that since the EAW has already been approved, there are no other environmental things to consider. He referred to a Minneapolis Park Board report indicating that the soils are unsuitable for building. He stated he was in favor of the original development project, but at that time they were developing a hospital that had been abandoned, an old dump full of refuse from the highway, and they were taking care of an eyesore in a bad spot. He stated the peninsula isn't that, it's just fine the way it is. Dr. David Cline, 4700 Kilarney Drive, urged the Planning Commission to reject this proposal and devote this land to park property. Jean Zawistowski, 1435 Bridgewater Road, stated there is a path behind her house that isn't a public path and that she has collected beer cans, liquor cans, used condoms and drug paraphernalia and didn't think anyone would want that in their back yard. She stated the lake is for everyone, and agreed there should be public access, but urged the Planning Commission not to put a public path on the peninsula. Steve Mahle, 1410 Spring Valley Road, stated he is opposed to the development and urged the Planning Commission to think about their grandchildren and how they would view the peninsula and the Planning Commissions decisions 50 years from now. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 16 Dave Fellman, 1540 St. Croix Circle, stated he was representing himself and not the Environmental Commission or the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. He read from the EAW and stated the City should be bound by it. He referred to a report submitted to the City by the Surface Water Management Committee that stated saving wetlands is a number one priority. He referred to a model ordinance that supports the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act that suggests a setback of 75 feet from the edge of the wetland to the principal structure. He referred to an e-mail he sent to Tom Hovey at the DNR in which Mr. Hovey states he would strongly support a 75-foot wetland setback if the City proposed one. Pentel asked if that's 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Fellman stated no, it's from the edge of the wetland. He showed a picture of a silt fence along Sweeney Lake and referred to the dirt that has built up there. He showed pictures of the sediment in the streets that missed the ponds and water that is running over land into the Lakes. He showed a picture of Sweeney Lake and stated the water is brown from the sediment that's washed into the lake. He showed a picture of a pond and referred to the EAWand stated the pond is supposed to contain 1 OO-year storm water and it isn't. He showed a picture of the bridge to Hidden Lakes and stated there is a 40" culvert there that is supposed to take the water out of Sweeney Lake. He stated the culvert is completely under water and is acting like a dam. He stated he's concerned about a child wading into the water. He referred to the developers planting plans and stated that no plants have been put around the ponds. Katherine Sobieck, 1400 Waterford Drive, referred to a letter she wrote to Barry Blomquist, General Partner of Hidden Lakes Development. She also submitted photographs which she feels evidences the lack of responsibility on the part of the developer and the builder in this project. She urged the Planning Commission to make some prudent decisions in further development of this project. She stated the development of the hillside is crazy and there isn't enough land there and the traffic on the streets would be impossible. Celeste Shahidi, 1810 Major Drive, stated she learned to swim in Sweeney Lake and is upset because her daughter can't swim in the Lake. She stated it's a shame to allow the lake to deteriorate like it is and urged the Planning Commission to make a decision for the future. Greg Klave, 600 Lilac Drive North, stated that by allowing the peninsula to be developed we are throwing our ecological heritage out the window and taking the Golden out of Golden Valley. He stated it's a pristine nature area left over from the glacial period that once covered this area. He stated he's concerned that what he sees in the planning process seems to be more interested in protecting the developer instead of the environment. Michael Nelson, 1745 Bridgewater Road, stated he is in favor of the proposal. He stated the City needs the tax base to help clean up Sweeney Lake. He stated that the developer is not at fault for the pollution of Sweeney Lake, and that the pollution is from the Highway 100 project. He stated he would like to see the development continue and that the majority of the people in the development are happy with the developer and the landscaping. He stated the two ponds near him are working fine. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 17 Pentel mentioned that the Planning Commission received two letters. One from Stephen Passeri, 1498 Waterford Drive and one from James Assali, 1499 Waterford Drive. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. She stated she would allow the developer to speak to the comments that were made. Bill Huser, borrowed Mr. Fellman's photographs and stated he is troubled by the information that's been presented, particularly in this photographic format. He stated he personally goes to the site virtually every day and his highest priority as project manager for this project is making sure there is very good erosion control. He stated that over the last four years they have been complimented by virtually every agency and every person that deals with environmental control as having done an outstanding job on this project. He stated he strongly disagrees with the information shown earlier intonating that the degradation of Sweeney Lake is caused by the Hidden Lakes development. He urged the Planning Commission, the people in the room and the people watching on TV. to talk to people at the DNR, the watershed district, and the people who are on the Surface Water Management Committee to get a better understanding of what the problem is. He stated there are issues with water coming into Sweeney Lake from the south side, but the run off is not coming from the Hidden Lakes development. He referred to the silt fence picture that Mr. Fellman showed earlier and stated that less than a week ago, he had Metro Erosion Control (contractor for Hidden Lakes) replace every bit of erosion control fence on the site. He referred to the photograph of the bridge that Mr. Fellman stated is acting like a dam and stated that water is in fact, running through the pipe as fast as it's coming in. He stated to imply that the flooding has something to do with the way Hidden Lakes handles their storm water is very deceptive. He referred to the reference made to the water running over the land into the storm management ponds and stated that that is what the water is supposed to do and that the ponds are working as they were designed to work. Pentel asked Huser about the amount of land that will need to be moved or excavated. Huser stated that could be calculated and he can get the figure for the Planning Commission. Shaffer asked for the figure for the disturbed area also. Huser stated that couldn't be calculated as of now because they don't know the size of the houses at this point. He stated they tried to be extremely conservative when they laid out the plans and tried to show the extreme of what could be developed. Shaffer asked when they figured the disturbed area if they included the footings for the retaining wall and utilities. Huser stated that was all included in the figure. Shaffer asked about the discrepancy between the impervious surface and the disturbed surface. Huser stated the disturbed surface that was listed was for the installation of the roadway. The total impervious surface calculation that was given included that roadway and an estimated amount for the homes and driveways once they are completed. Pentel asked what the feeling of the Commission was as to making their deliberations at that point. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 18 McAleese stated it would be wise to hold the deliberations over to the next meeting. He also asked if the people who had visual aids could leave them with City to allow the Planning Commission to look at them. Grimes asked the Commission what additional information they would like to see at the next meeting. Pentel stated she would like to know the consequences of running the utilities under the lake. She would like a better idea of how grading is going to happen across the site to better understand how much land is going to be disturbed. Hoffman asked what the time constraints are for the developers. Grimes stated the City has to give them approval before they can begin. Eck stated he would like to know what the impact would be on the seeps and springs on this development will be if the recharge is on the peninsula itself and doesn't come from offsite. Grimes stated he will review the report from Kelton Barr referred to in the informal public hearing along with the report done in 1997 with the Public Works Director and City Engineer. Groger asked if Staff could do what they can to review conflicts between what was said and what was in the staff reports and if they could have some definitive information on which to base their opinions on. Hoffman asked to see the park board report that Mr. Mattison referred to in the public hearing. Grimes stated he would get the report, but stated it needs to be evaluated. Pentel stated she would like to discuss the following issues at the next meeting: public lands, sewage, width of the road, rain garden technique, utilities going under Twin Lake to get to the peninsula, basement excavation, the amount of land to be moved, the amount of disturbed area, and the height of the water table. Grimes suggested that if the Planning Commission is concerned about park dedication they should talk to the City Council to ask them for something from the Park and Open Space Commission. Pentel stated she would write a letter to the Mayor and Council asking them for information from the Park and Open Space Commission. Pentel stated that at the next meeting she would like to take each Commissioners issues one by one and have a public discussion, but not a public hearing. Grimes stated he was going to ask someone from Public Works to attend the next meeting. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to continue the consideration by the Planning Commission of the PUD amendment at the May 14, 2001 meeting. -- Short Recess -- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Page 19 III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings There was no discussion regarding other meetings. IV. Other Business A. Discussion of General Mills EAW There was discussion of the General Mills EAWand it was decided that the Planning Commissioners would be doing individual comments. Shaffer stated that he would not be able to discuss General Mills items due to a conflict of interests. B. Joint Meeting with City Council on May 21,2001 There was discussion of the joint meeting that will take place on May 21,2001 between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss the PUD Ordinance V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm.