2001-04-23 EC Agenda PktFITO a 011711
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, April 23, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes — March 26, 2001
III. General Mills EAW
IV. Commission Review of CIP
V. Hidden Lakes EAW and PUD Amendment
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjourn
G:\Environmental Commission\Agendas\042301.doc
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
March 26, 2001
Present: Richard Baker, Alicia Brown, Nancy Burke, David Fellman, Dawn Hill,
Alan Kuentz
Council: Mary Anderson, Mayor; Marti Micks, Council Member
City Staff: Tom Klatt, Maintenance Manager; Al Lundstrom, Environmental
Coordinator; Jeff Oliver, City Engineer; Tracy Pharr, Administrative
Secretary
Absent: Sue Hess
Call to Order
Meeting called to order at 7:10 p.m. Oliver introduced Pharr as new Administrative
Secretary in the Public Works Department and told of her employment and education
backgrounds.
II. Aaaroval of Minutes — February 26. 2001
No changes.
MOTION: Moved by Baker, seconded by Fellman, approve the minutes of the
February 22, 2001 meeting as submitted.
III. Commission Guidelines:
Hill introduced Mayor Anderson and Council Member Micks. They were in attendance
to discuss Commission Guidelines that were passed out at last meeting. Mayor
Anderson indicated that they were at the meeting to answer any questions. Mayor
Anderson gave background on Guidelines.
Meeting Attendance
Micks stated clarification was made that Commission Members must attend 75 percent
of meetings. Also stated that under the Public Meeting Law this is a public body, and
discussion must not be made between members outside of meetings such that outcome
of recommendations in meetings may be impacted. Anderson indicated that the law for
meeting is that a majority of a quorum cannot meet.
Health Issues
Fellman had questions regarding attendance and health issues. He thinks the
Chairman of Environmental Commission should have some discretion as to excusing
absence for extenuating circumstances. Micks indicated that this had been looked at.
Anderson indicated that she and Micks would be bringing any concerns of the
Commission to the Council, but that this particular issue of absence did not necessarily
have to be discussed further at this time. Anderson reiterated that all comments would
be taken back to Council and responded to.
Commissions. Committees. Foundations. Task Forces
Hill asked for clarification about commissions, committees, foundations and task forces.
Micks stated that commissions are long-term, standing and in our established
ordinance. She said committees are shorter term. Anderson stated task forces were
essentially the same with a different name and perhaps a more individual, specific
issue. Hill asked about foundations. Micks stated there is only one foundation, the
Human Services Foundation, which was established as a non-profit fundraising body for
charitable causes to help residents of Golden Valley.
Hill asked if the Nature Preserve would have been a not-for-profit foundation. Anderson
said she was uncertain as to what their specific rules would have been, but it would
have been something similar, but likely not under the City or General Mills.
Communication
Hill asked Anderson and Micks to talk a little about communications to and from
commissions. Anderson stated that these guidelines tried to formalize them for the
purpose of being sure that there is no miscommunication. If a commission has an issue
or recommendation to the Council, it should be submitted in writing. City staff then
prepares the submittal. The Council Secretary, Judy Nally, will have the item placed on
the Council agenda. A commission member should be in attendance at the Council
meeting to verbalize the recommendation. Other Commission members can attend.
The Mayor indicated she would put in writing anything the Council requests. This would
be a better record that verbal instructions. Micks asked the Mayor if the Council was
going to meet with the commissions once or twice per year. Anderson indicated this
was not done last year, and that a better job of visiting commissions, even without
particular issues to be addressed, had been discussed.
Written Communications
Hill stated that when the commission did a response to the General Mills EAW, it was
printed on Public Works letterhead, speaking on behalf of the commission as a part of
the City. She wondered if this was appropriate. Oliver stated that there is a standard
memo format. He indicated that the Golden Valley header next to the logo could be
changed with ease. Mayor Anderson said this was a good idea. Memos would be
received directly from the individual commissions.
Press Interaction
Micks discussed commission members and the media, and the importance of clarifying
personal opinions from the official position of the Commission. Micks also stated that if
commission members address the Council, be sure to state that you are coming forward
as a private citizen or as a Commission representative. Hill asked if members are
prohibited from speaking with the press. Anderson and Micks stated no.
There was additional discussion regarding lobbying efforts on Commission items and
discussion of items with members of the public. There was also discussion regarding
distribution of information to Commission members. Mayor Anderson indicated that
agenda related information should be sent to staff. Staff will then disburse the
information to all Commission members.
Council Referrals
Micks asked if the commission felt that issues like Rice Lake should be referred to them
to give recommendations. Hill stated sometimes the commission was looking to the
Council for direction on items that should be pursued. Mayor Anderson stated that Rice
Lake has been before the Council for over a year. Burke asked if there could be some
sort of standing referral that would automatically refer issues. Mayor Anderson said this
should probably be discussed. She stated that there may be a way for the Council to
send items in the Commission's purview that come to them to be referred to the
Commission if items are not time -sensitive. Hill stated that they had asked staff at last
meeting to circulate any EAWs to the Commission. This allows for comment from the
group.
Sweeney Lake
The water quality study prepared by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
for Sweeney Lake was brought up. The report indicates that the recreational index has
downgraded Sweeney Lake from a Level 2, the second highest rating, to a Level 5,
which is severely impaired — unswimmable. The Commission has not communicated
this to residents. It was brought up that the Environmental Commission should be on
top of issues like this, and residents should be informed as well.
Brown asked when the lake was downgraded. Fellman indicated before the sewage
spill. Oliver stated the Recreational Index was based upon the water quality sampling
program that occurs by the commission watershed -wide. The summary of the report
made a correlation with Highway 100 construction immediately upstream of the lake.
Since that point in time, staff has been working with the Watershed, the DNR and a
number of other agencies, along with MnDOT regarding that issue. This is an ongoing
process. The Council was updated on this issue at their last meeting.
Micks wondered if this test was expensive to do, and if there was some type of
monitoring of City lakes that residents and their families swim in that could be performed
and placed on a website. Baker said the conclusion last time this was discussed was
that water quality monitoring should be a topic for future meeting discussions and to
learn more about the issue. Oliver stated monitoring could be expensive depending on
number of parameters. The more parameters added, the more complicated the
machinery and analysis becomes. The long-term trend of the lake is the most important
thing to observe. A single point cannot be extracted from a graph with conclusions
drawn of the lake's overall health. Fellman also stated Twin Lake, which has nothing to
do with Sweeney Lake, had increases. Burke indicated there would be a hydraulic
connection between the two.
Micks stated there were lots of ideas, and all should feel free to write or come before the
Council. Hill indicated that the Commission would like feedback from the Council as
well. Mayor Anderson stated that formal feedback from the Council would be a request
for something in particular, i.e., an issue, assignment, etc.
Hill stated again that the commission would like to review anything requiring an EAW.
Hill asked if the Commission Guidelines were subject to any additional modification.
The Mayor said she would raise tonight's issue with the Council. If there are any
questions before the final, they can be sent to the Council. Anderson indicated this is a
d raft.
Anderson and Micks departed at approximately 8:00 p.m.
IV. Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Model of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed:
Hill saw item in the SunPost stating Golden Valley residents being sought for
Watershed District Committee appointments. Oliver stated the South Tyrol Hills area is
the only portion of the City in this Watershed. Hill asked if anyone would be interested.
No Commission members expressed interest.
V. Environmental Communications Plan Update:
Lundstrom indicated that the Environmental Communications Plan had been finalized.
Most of the Commission recommendations for changes were adopted.
Lundstrom indicated that the Environmental Communications Plan would be brought
back to the Commission annually. The focus could be changed in a year if the
Commission wishes.
VI. General Mills EAW for New Office Tower
The new EAW was distributed to the Commission. Oliver discussed the schedule. The
official comment period begins April 2, ends May 2. The information meeting with the
Council is on April 3. Recommendation is to have this item placed on next month's
agenda for discussion. Hill asked if all thought this should be only agenda item for next
meeting. Hill explained that the Commission always has the option to not make any
comments. They can simply ask to receive all EAWs. All agreed.
Hidden Lakes
Kuentz asked if the Commission could review and comment on the Hidden Lakes
Development on the peninsula. Oliver stated the group was free to discuss, but the
Commission is not chartered to make recommendations to the Council on development
proposals. Baker wanted to know if they had to have Council permission to discuss.
Oliver stated that the Commission could ask Council for review authority. Baker
questioned Oliver's interpretation that this was not part of the Commission's charter.
The area is a significant natural area within the City. This makes this an applicable
issue. Oliver stated this area is a private development that falls under the purview of
the Planning Commission.
Burke questioned the Commission's ability to have an EAW done on this. Oliver stated
there was an EAW done on the entire Hidden Lakes development, prior to the original
PUD. Fellman stated this was five years ago. Oliver stated the Council always has
discretion to require an EAW, but this is not mandatory.
Fellman suggested someone address the Council at their next meeting, requesting a
Commission review of Hidden Lakes.
MOVED by Fellman, seconded by Kuentz, with motion left undecided to have the
Environmental Commission address the City Council about reviewing and
commenting on environmental impacts of development on Twin and Sweeney
Lakes.
Further discussion on Twin and Sweeney Lakes continued. Oliver stated the EAW from
five years ago covered the entire PUD, of which the peninsula was part. The only way
to have another EAW done would be if the Council directed the developers to prepare
one. It is not triggered automatically. Baker asked what type of variances could be
granted in a PUD. Oliver stated the content of the amendment is varying from the
number of lots that were originally approved in 1997, lot sizes, and items the PUD talks
about like setbacks from roads, side lot lines, variances from the zoning ordinance, etc.
It does not allow the developer to ask for variances from any environmental law, city,
state or watershed. These requirements must be met in any development scenario.
Baker asked if the original PUD included development of the peninsula, and if the
developer is now asking for a revision of that. Oliver stated the PUD permit stated that
development on the peninsula could not occur until a certain set of parameters
occurred. Also in the agreement was that development on the peninsula would be
limited to a certain number of lots. As of last fall, the developer has met all of those
requirements. The City is working with them on their submittal. It has been delayed
again because of some other issues that are still in discussion stages.
Hill asked, with the motion open, if the Commission wished her to address Council. Hill
recalled question. All in favor of having the motion adopted. Ayes, heard. Hill
opposed. Motion carried.
Hill stated the General Mills EAW would be only official topic for next meeting.
VII. Discuss Management of City Nature Areas
Tom Klatt, Public Works Maintenance Manager, was introduced. Klatt discussed how
nature areas in the City are managed. Topics included trail paving and maintenance,
non-native invasive species and land improvements.
Baker inquired if nature areas were officially designated. He also asked how many
areas there are, total acreage and for a list of the major ones. Klatt stated:
• General Mills research area — 35 acres. Cooperatively maintained with
General Mills.
• Pennsylvania Woods — north end of community.
• Briarwood — bird sanctuary.
• Laurel Avenue Greenbelt.
• North and South Tyrol — borders St. Louis Park.
• Strawberry Pond — pristine nature area.
• Mary Hills — connects with Robbinsdale.
Hill asked if groups or families adopted these areas. Klatt said yes, the City does have
an Adopt a Park Program.
Lundstrom discussed the Natural Resource Inventory and Management Plan that is
included in the CIP. Burke asked if wildlife and birds would also be inventoried, in
addition to plants. Lundstrom stated this was yet to be determined.
Lundstrom discussed increasing number of requests to do something about buckthorn.
Hennepin Parks recommends not starting a buckthorn program unless prepared to
commit to a minimum of a five-year pursuit.
Hill brought up paving trails. Klatt stated there is an increasing usage pattern, non -
paved trails are maintenance intensive, liability issues, winter use and issues and desire
to have more useable and accessible nature areas.
Kuentz asked if the Commission could review the CIP, and possibly discuss with the
Parks and Open Space Commissions. Hill wondered if the two commissions could
come together for a joint meeting. Brown questioned why the group would get involved,
as the other committee is already involved.
MOVED by Kuentz, seconded by Fellman, with motion to view the plans for this
summer's activities in the nature areas and offer comment on same. No vote at
this time.
Baker thought nature areas were in the Environmental Commission's realm. Lundstrom
read Item D, "Develop and make recommendations on management practices for the
City's nature areas, public and private." Group felt this solidified reasoning to pursue
this item.
Motion tabled until after staff meeting convenes tomorrow. Motion withdrawn by Kuentz
with second by Fellman to table motion. Further discussion will continue in future
meetings. An update of this issue will be heard at next meeting.
VIII. Other Business
Two items of Other Business:
Handout of adjusted Commission meeting dates. Sue Hess to receive a copy.
Brown will be unable to attend July meeting.
Handout in correspondence packet from Jeannine Clancy. Handout
acknowledged Commission's comments on EAW.
Hill asked for agenda items for next month's meeting. Fellman stated he would like to
discuss Twin and Sweeney Lakes. Would like Commission to recommend a
moratorium on any construction anywhere on these water bodies until water quality
issues are resolved. Oliver stated there are legal considerations that would need to be
addressed. Fellman stated he was saying this is an emergency situation that requires
quick action. Hill commented that at most the Commission could recommend to the
Council to place a moratorium on construction. Asked again if this was a motion.
MOVED by Fellman. Hill asked for second of motion. Baker asked for a
restatement of the motion. Fellman stated the motion to recommend a
moratorium on any construction on Sweeney Lake until the lake is restored to a
Level 2 on the Recreational Index.
Hill asked if there was a second to the motion. No second to motion.
No additional business. Only agenda items for next month's meeting are the General
Mills EAW and comments from staff on Park and Open Space. If time allows, Sweeney
and Twin Lakes may be revisited.
IX. Adjourn
The next meeting will be held on April 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
11(A&M �... A
Tracy Pharr
Administrative Secretary
Department of Public Works
`Golden galley
Date: April 19, 2001
To: Environmental Commission
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
2f
Subject: April 23, 2001 Meeting
Public Works
763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax)
The following items are included at the April 23, 2001 Environmental Commission meeting.
General Mills Environmental Assessment Worksheet: A copy of the EAW was provided to
each member of the Commission at the March meeting. Please bring your copy for
discussion.
Commission Review of Capital Improvement Plan: At the March meeting, the Commission
requested that it be given the opportunity to review the Five Year CIP as it relates to Nature
Areas. Although the 2001 — 2005 CIP has already been approved by the City Council, copies
of projects relating to Nature Areas are included in the packet for your review. In future
years, the Commission will be able to review the CIP for these issues, as well as the storm
water management (and other applicable sections) of the CIP.
Hidden Lakes PUD Amendment: After discussion, the City Council determined that the
Commission would not review the proposed Hidden Lakes PUD Amendment. A copy of a
memo from Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, to the City Council
regarding the Commission request to review Hidden Lakes is enclosed with this packet. In
addition, portions of the original Hidden Lakes EAW will be distributed at the meeting packet
for information. As with any other development proposal, Commission members are free to
present their personal views regarding the Hidden Lakes PUD Amendment at any public
hearing. In addition, if any commission members would like to review the proposed plans for
this, or any other development proposal, please contact me at 763.593.8034 so we can
review the plans and discuss the proposals.
As part of the Hidden Lakes discussion, the City Council felt it would be appropriate for the
Commission to review the Shoreland Ordinance. Staff will gather the appropriate information
regarding our existing ordinance, the DNR model ordinance and other applicable information
for discussion at the May commission meeting.
G:\Enviromnental Commission\Memos\Cover Memo 401.doc
L
C)
co
-0
_
C)
L
N
Q
O
L
U
CO
(�
(1)
�
Q)
O
�
N
It
O
O
O
�
U
D
Z
N
o
�
U)
0)
Oz
co
n
a�
U
U)
w
o
CD
m
o
C)
O
o
O
(10
r'
F
N
L
+
O)
U
w
Z
LU
O 4
cLa
LX•J
w
00
a
No
c
U
O
N
O
N
O
C/)
•-
f—
C
O
U
O
C
O
=
Q)
Y
O
Q
O
C
OU
L
cz
c
^l
O
O
O
W
>
CO}
N
N
cz
V
n
O
O
O
Q)
U
CB
E
N
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
Q)
00
co
cB
U
Uj O
U
Co 30
O
U)
a
W
U
O
ly-
c
O
0 a)
L
0
D
a)
3
Z =3W
W -O
Q
0
O
-U
O
U
d o
U
Z
w
c
c
o
X U
w
a_o
a)C�
a)
LU
O
C:
w
Q
(1) CZ
�-
O
w
0
c
U
c
a�
c
Z
c
U
C
ca
Z
w
Q(D
Z
U
cv U
O cn
c
O
LL
a
>
O
0
�
f - 'c� 4
z
f—
o
�
w
~ cn
'c6
Q)
Q
U U
O .�
U
U
>
H a>
c`o
w
m
O
w m a�
D C -a
L c
a
a
a_
f-
0a
->> m
w_
►-W
i
N
O
T-
LO
O
O
N
C
a)
O
Itt
L (0
Q
d m
Z
No
O
d
Z
Y co a)
cu .S E
CZ
d
E
E
coCD
c
C
C)
N
a)oE
3 U 0
a)
-p
cn E
U
E
Z
OLcn
W
a)
w
c
O
o
x
u)— E
CD -E
W
No
a o
C)
N
5 � d
U
O E
F-
a) :*-, -
O
C Co
cu
cu
J O O
J �
,
O
4) a) O
C > N
C
CD
O
C)
C
a)
ON
�
QCU
a)
cn
cu
a
O
O
O U
cu
O
C)
Q) Co c
C
CD
O
Cl
Q 3
'p
co
O
O
O C
U
�
N .0 co
n
a) CL
Q
O L_
�
cn .O
�
H
O
W
- c
C7
D
C �
W
F—
co a) —
—
s
-C
co
w
U
Z'U
0-
a)
�
w
X03
U
OC
W
CL
CU
M
Z_
LL
w
a) O
U)
U
F-
Z
C
7 r
xE)(1)O
w
E O
Z
E
CD
W
-'
Z O .N 'D L
O BOO
cn
0 a)
ca
O
_U_
n
u-
U
cn
w
E
J
Q
i
U co O C
Q
H E
w ai
O
I-
U) C- •- r
CU
n
o�.Ez
��
wz
cn
N
O
T-
Date: March 27, 2001
To: Mary Anderson, Mayor
City of Golden Valley
From: Environmental Commission, City of Golden Valley
Dawn L. Hill, Chairperson
Subject: Request to be on the Agenda for the
April 3, 2001 City Council Meeting
Madame Mayor:
At the meeting of the Environmental Commission on March 26, 2001, a motion was
passed by the Commission that a Commission representative should come before the
Council at its next meeting.
We are aware that the Council will be considering the amendment of the Hidden Lakes
P.U.D. at an upcoming meeting. We request the Council's approval for the Commission
to comment on the environmental impact of this action.
We do not have the related document itself, nor do we know the timing of due dates, etc.
for comments. The Environmental Commission believes, however, that there is value in
having the Commission review the proposal with an eye toward environmental concerns.
Golden Valley
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
To: William S. Joynes, City Manager
From: Mark Grimes Director COPY
to of Planning and Development
Subject: Request by Environmental Commission to Review Amendment to Hidden Lakes
Planned Unit Development
Date: March 28, 2001
At the March 26, 2001 meeting of the Environmental Commission, the Commission stated that they
would be asking the City Council for the opportunity to review the amendment to allow seven homes
on the peninsula. The Environmental Commission stated that they believe "there is value in having
the Commission review the proposal with an eye toward environmental concerns". The developer
has submitted an application for the PUD amendment and it is anticipated that the Planning
Commission will have its first public hearing on this matter in April.
The staff would like to remind the City Council that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
was prepared for the Hidden Lakes Development in 1996. The City Council passed a resolution that
issued a negative declaration on the EAW on February 4, 1997. This resolution states that the
Hidden Lakes development does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and that
there is no need to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). I am attaching a copy of
Resolution No. 97-16.
The EAW that was prepared for Hidden Lakes did include the development of ten single-family lots on
the peninsula. The City did receive comments from several state agencies regarding the EAW. None
of the state agencies believed that an EIS was necessary. In particular, the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources reviewed the proposed development plans and EAW. The DNR believed that with
proper environmental precautions during and after construction, the peninsula could be developed.
The City staff has reviewed the current 7 -lot plan with DNR Area Hydrologist Tom Hovey. Mr. Hovey
has sent us a letter indicating that the plan is consistent with the City's shoreland land use controls
and that any work below the ordinary high water mark would require a DNR permit. He also said that
the inclusion of rain gardens to reduce runoff on the peninsula is welcome. He told staff that the DNR
has no jurisdiction over the peninsula development because of the proposed setbacks from Sweeney
Lake.
As part of the review of the amended PUD for Hidden Lakes, requirements by the City and other
agencies will be placed on the development of the peninsula that will help to mitigate the
environmental effects of development. For instance, plans will have to be reviewed and approved by
the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission to insure that their policies regarding water
quality, erosion control, wetland impact and floodplain impact are met. The Department of Health will
review plans for water lines and sanitary sewers. The DNR has already told the City that the Hidden
Lake plans for the peninsula meets their requirements for development as long as City policies
regarding shore land management are met.
I am also attaching a copy of the ordinance creating the Environmental Commission. Reviewing
subdivision or PUD applications is not one of the specific duties and responsibilities as outlined. In
fact, it is the staff's recollection that the City Council specifically noted that the Environmental
Commission would not review on-going planning items such as PUD applications. This type of
additional review would cause timing issues when processing planning applications. The City is
limited in time by the Legislature to 60 days for reviewing most planning applications.
w
LU
m
W
E
Z
0
�
,v,^
v/
S
1
J
J
Q
Z
W
2
Z
0
Z
LLL
m
U
L
O
C=
C�
C
O
70
Cp
N
O
U
N
C
co
O
CB
E
c
O
C
O
� U
(p N
O O
.S U)
C0
O
0
C6
QE
`
10
O� -
O
O
CU
U O
N
cu
L
O O
°,
°,
c
co
0
0
C7
E
0
Q)
C
(0
U
0
E
E
U
��
.c o
c
E
U
O
O
�
O
�
°
"a
E
o
t0
E
E a
W
fnco
—
O
-C
i
O
O
co
co
^` co
�G
c
�
3
co
E
O
=
N
E
L
O
LO
-coo
O
�
cn
C
Y
U Y
C o
c
ca
o
-Clc
�Ol
CR
z
d
E
O-
N
M
0
194-
Lf)
O a)
O �
m
N
LO
00
Z
K
M
O
ti
M
-)M
M
000
CM
COO
U
LN
U.
CN N
11i
r
N
r
N
r
N N
r r
o
cc
(0
co CD
C
O
O
00
ti
LO
In
cfl
CO
M
co
O
t
4.
ti
co
ti
LO
(0
co
ti
M
LC)
O
N
Y
L
ti
N
M
N
M
ti
c7
M
000
c~
coO
LO
co
�
LO
N
LO
N
Ln
N
r
N
e--
N
r
N
T-
(0
O
O
(0
CO
co
O
O
000
�
O
CD
LO
O
Cfl
00
ti
LN
M
O
ct
a
ti
00
N
O
ti
LO
A
N
ti
I�
d
ti
O
00
00
N
CA
Il-
00
00
E
M
M
LO
LC)
LO
co
Ln
O
=
M
cc
A
c0
M
C.0
M
cfl
A
c0
A
cD
M
cfl
I�
ti
ti
�
ti
ti
ti
N
M
W
M
Y
N
CD
N
N
N
Il-
N
N
LO
ICT
LO
IT
LO
I
LO
LSA
LO
It"t
LU
m Q
L1)
Q
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z}
Z
m J
=
W
QULLJ
W>-
ZQLLI
Z U>-
QXJ
W }-
U)QJ
�J
W J
J Q
i—> J
CUmZ
E
J
—J
J
J
W
2QJ
W —1
J0J
NUJ
�CI-J
F J
QZQ
�i-Q
U Q
�m>
J�Q
=�Q
WO>
J_}Q
=J>
ZQQ
W�>
D —>
Z�Q>
Z Z
Op O Z
w
QZ0
WU>
W Z
LU
Z U Z
—� W Z
O z
of
�LU � z
LU
=Q0
J
C) 't
UPJ
SMO
��0
BOJ
Q�0
QAC)
NOJ
Zm0
ZY0
�OJ
Qo0
ZW0
�J
<�O
U�0
ZI`J
QUO
X04
QM0
CD
U)co(D
0N0
< 0
zV- CD
0
0
C7
E
0
Q)
C
(0
U
0
E
E
U
��
.c o
c
Cit>>
qt`
City Administration/Council
olden Valley763-593-8002 / 763-593-8109(fax) P'L
Date: April 20, 2001
To: Golden Valley Environmental Commission
From: Mary E. Anderson, Mayor
Subject: Response to Environmental Commission Request Regarding Hidden Lakes PUD
The Golden Valley City Council discussed the request to "review the proposal with an eye
toward environmental concerns".
The EAW for Hidden Lakes, including the peninsula, has been completed and a
determination has been made that no additional environmental study is required. The
Golden Valley City Council suggested that the Environmental Commission could
receive an informational report from staff on that document.
2. When the Environmental Commission was formed, the City Council carefully
discussed the charge. Reviewing subdivision or PUD applications was not included.
At the April 3, 2001 meeting, the Golden Valley City Council unanimously received and filed
the staff report on this issue dated March 28, 2001.
Also, the Council unanimously passed a motion "that the Environmental Commission fulfill
their duties and responsibilities as outlined in Ordinance 218, Subdivision 2C. Review and
make recommendations regarding the City's existing environmental ordinances, policies and
guidelines with a view toward protecting our water bodies". As an example, the Council
identified the Shore and Management Section of the Zoning Code as a topic for study.
These actions were taken to clarify the role of the Environmental Commission that is to deal
with the development and recommendation of environmental policy as opposed to review the
comment on specific development proposals. That duty is the responsibility of the Planning
Commission and Council using the policies that have been adopted.