#069 08-01-77 Reject Proposal Health Central, Inc.PUD #17Resolution No. 69
August 1, 1977
Member Thorsen introduced and read the following written resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION REJECTING THE PROPOSALS OF HEALTH CENTRAL, INC. RELATING
TO PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 17, AFFIRMING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
RELATING TO SAID PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND CONFIRMING THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH APPLICANT MAY PROCEED TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN.
WHEREAS, Health Central, Inc. is the owner of approximately 105.4
acres of land in the City of Golden Valley being a part of the Southeast 1/4
and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County,
Minnesota on which property said Health Central, Inc. has located a hospital
and buildings accessory thereto (known and referred to as Golden Valley Health
Center'') and,
WHEREAS, Health Central, Inc. has applied to the City of Golden
Valley for the approval of a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Section 15
of the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances for
the purpose of further developing said sit (Hereinafter referred to as PUD
#17) and,
WHEREAS, in consequence of said application numerous meetings and
public hearings have been held by the City Council and various Advisory Commissions
of the City of Golden Valley to consider said application and,
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1976 the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley did approve a General Development Plan for said PUD #17 which approval
contained substantial variances from the provisions of the zoning ordinance
as well as several conditions required to be met by the applicant and,
WHEREAS, as a consequence of such approval the City Council directed
the preparation of a Sepcial Use Permit, Development Contract and related
documents setting out the terms and conditions under which the applicant might
proceed with said PUD #17 and,
WHEREAS, thereafter, and by letter dated July 6, 1977, Health Central,
Inc., by and through its Board Chairman, advised the City Council of the
City of Golden Valley that Health Central, Inc. would not agree to three of
the requirements of said Special Use Permit, to -wit:
a) Paragraph i.2 thereof requiring the applicant to dedicate in fee
simple approximately 2.0 acres of land located North
of the marsh and West of the proposed road as defined on the
preliminary plat of the property attached to the proposed
Special Use Permit including right of access thereto over
Health Central property, proposing to substitute therefor
2.0 acres of land in another location;
Resolution No. 69
August 1, 1977
b) Paragraph 7. thereof requiring the applicant to relinquish its
development rights to that parcel of land designated as
Area "H" on applicant's site plan;
c) Paragraph 5. thereof and Exhibit "A" as provided therein
requiring the applicant to pay to the City of Golden Valley
the sum of $63,494.00 in lieu of additional land dedication
purusant to the authority contained in Minn. State. Section
462.358, Subdivision 2 and Section 440:80(2), Golden Valley
Ordinance Code and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the position taken by applicant
with respect to the matters above set forth,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY AS FOLLOWS:
I. The proposal of applicant Health Central, Inc. as contained in its
letter to the City Council under date of July 6, 1977 is hereby rejected
based upon the following findings:
a. A Planned Unit Development is designed as a special zoning
device to allow design flexibility by granting to the
applicant substantial variances from the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance including uses, set backs, height and
similar regulations. The granting of such variances is
of significant benefit to the developers of land and greatly
facilitates land use and development.
b. The applicant, Health Central, Inc., has been accorded the
benefit of such flexibility and variances with regard to its
land in the proposed Special Use Permit for PUD #17.
c. The site of the applicant is unique in that it contains
a substantial amount of open space with a variety of
attractive amenities including varying terrain, areas of
good vegetation, a peninsula, Bassett Creek and Sweeny -
Twin Lakes.
d. As an example of the uniqueness of the site it is a large
tract of land, zoned for institutional use, with only one
means of ingress and egress to and from heavily travelled
County Road No. 66 (Golden Valley Road). This presents
special and particular problems in the development of the
site in that institutional uses have a high degree of
need for life -safety protective services with a need for
free and easy access to the thoroughfares both within and
without the site.
12)
Resolution No. 69 (cont)
August 1, 1977
e. The City Council in considering development os such a site has
a responsibility to make every effort to preserve
such amenities and to provide safeguards for the environment
for the benefit of the entire community.
f. Applicant's proposed development will have an impact upon
the requirements of the City for park and recreational needs,
open space requirements and storm sewer and ponding develop-
ments and water quality,
g. Institutional developments, such as applicant's can become,
if not carefully circumscribed, a blight upon adjacent
neighborhoods and the community at large.
h. Limiting and controlling full development of such a site
is essential to the area considering the unusual and unique
features of the site and the problems which it generates.
2. The proposed Special Use Permit, Development Contract, attached exhibits
and other related documents are hereby affirmed together with all the terms
and conditions therein.
3. The time for applicant to proceed as provided in Section 15.04 (11)
(F) of the Zoning Ordinance has heretofore been extended to September 6,
1977. Said date is hereby confirmed as the limit of the time allowed
applicant to proceed unless, upon good cause shown said date is further
extended.
Robert R. Hoover, Mayor
ATTEST:
John PMurphA*,,Cit_y�'C`le4rk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded
by Member Johnson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Anderson, Hoover, Johnson, Thorsen and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk.
1