HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/2019•••
••••
Apple II
Valley
Meeting Location: Municipal Center
7100 147th Street West
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124
August 7, 2019
PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA
7:00 PM
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Consent Agenda Items
Consent Agenda Items are considered routine and will be enacted with a
single motion, without discussion, unless a commissioner or citizen requests
to have any item separately considered. It will then be moved to the land
use/action items for consideration.
A. Approve Minutes of July 17, 2019, Regular Meeting
4. Public Hearings
5. Land Use / Action Items
A. Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
PC19-09-P
Consider Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments Re -
designating .5 Acres From "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low
Density Residential), 14.5 Acres From "PR" (Private Recreation) to
"MD" (Medium Density Residential) and 8 Acres From "PR" (Private
Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential)
Location: 8661 140th Street West (Northwest Corner of 140th Street West
and Garden View Drive)
Petitioner: Joel Watrud
6. Other Business
A. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates
Next Planning Commission Meeting - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 7:00
p.m.
Next City Council Meeting - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
7. Adjourn
Regular meetings are broadcast, live, on Charter Communications Cable Channel
180 and on the City's website at www.cityofapplevalley.org
l
App Valil
ley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
3.A.
August 7, 2019
Consent Agenda
Description:
Approve Minutes of July 17, 2019, Regular Meeting
Staff Contact:
Joan Murphy, Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve minutes of regular meeting of July 17, 2019.
SUMMARY:
The minutes of the last regular Planning Commission meeting are attached for your review
and approval.
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires the creation and preservation of meeting minutes which document the
official actions and proceedings of public governing bodies.
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 17, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Burke
at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan and David Schindler.
Members Absent: Tom Melander and Keith Diekmann.
Staff Present: City Attorney Mike Dougherty, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist,
Planner Kathy Bodmer and Department Assistant Joan Murphy.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice -Chair Burke asked if there were any changes to the agenda.
MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the
agenda. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0.
3. CONSENT ITEMS
MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz, approving the
minutes of the meeting of June 19, 2019. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tough Mudder/Ryan Real Estate Zoning Amendment — PC19-12-Z
Vice -Chair Burke opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.
Planner Kathy Bodmer stated the owners of the former Ryan Real Estate property, 14750 Cedar
Ave, LLC (Launch Property), are moving forward with the redevelopment of the former Ryan Real
Estate property at 14750 Cedar Ave. The owners are in the process of leasing up the previously
reviewed and approved building and would like to include a fitness facility, day spa or yoga studio
as a tenant. The approved plan has been slightly modified from the previous approval. Similar to the
approved plans, the existing real estate/multiple-tenant office building would be removed and an
11,200 square foot building would be constructed.
The coffee shop drive-thru lane is no longer part of the plan. The multiple -tenant building is
proposed to have a dental clinic, Mexican restaurant, sandwich shop and barber shop. The
petitioners would like to include a 3,200 sq. ft. Tough Mudder fitness facility as a tenant in the
building.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 17, 2019
Page 2 of 3
She said an amendment would be needed to the zoning district, PD -290, Zone 5, in order to allow a
fitness facility, day spa or yoga studio.
The current zoning, PD -290, Zone 5, has an "LB" (Limited Business) underlying zoning which
allows primarily professional office buildings, banks, and restaurants. The zoning does not allow for
retail sales. A fitness facility may be viewed as a service to nearby employees in nearby office
buildings. This type of fitness facility is described by the applicant as follows:
Tough Mudder Bootcamp is a subset of the fitness category known as Studio Fitness. Studio Fitness
is generally considered to be group fitness based classes conducted in a small format location (less
than 4,000sf). They typically have limits on class size and are held at scheduled times throughout
the day. They often allow for (or even require) advance reservation for a space in the class.
The petitioner states that a maximum of 40 people, counting members and staff, will use the facility
at any one time. The parking calculation indicates that the number of parking spaces required is 92
and that 100 spaces are proposed on the site.
Vice -Chair Burke closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan recommending
approval of the draft ordinance amending PD -290, Zone 5, to allow a fitness facility,
day spa or yoga studio as a permitted use in the zone. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0.
5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS
-NONE-
6. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates.
Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next regular Planning
Commission meeting would take place Wednesday, August 7, 2019, at 7:00 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Vice -Chair Burke
asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Commissioner Schlinder moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz to adjourn the
meeting at 7:11 p.m. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Joan Murphy
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 17, 2019
Page 3 of 3
Joan Murphy, Planning Department Assistant
Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission
on
Tom Melander, Chair
...
....
••••
..•
l
App Valil
ley
ITEM: 5.A.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2019
SECTION: Land Use /Action Items
Description:
Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments -
PC19-09-P
Staff Contact:
Thomas Lovelace, City Planner
Department/ Division:
Community Development Department
Applicant:
Joel Watrud
Project Number:
PC19-09-P
Applicant Date: 5/22/2019
60 Days: 7/20/2019
120 Days: 9/18/2019
ACTION REQUESTED:
If the Planning Commission concurs staff is recommending the following actions:
1. Recommend the re -designation of Outlot B, Cobblestones I from "PR" (Private
Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential).
2. Recommend the re -designation of Outlots A and C, and the north .25 acres of Outlot D,
Cobblestones I and the north 13.5 acres of a 14.5 -acre parcel from "PR" (Private
Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential).
3. Recommend denial of the re -designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the
south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR"
(Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential) due to the following findings:
1. Services such as shopping, transit, daycare, recreation, and other similar uses are
not in close proximity to the site.
2. The site is not located where services are currently available and convenient or
are expected to be in the future.
3. The site lacks the critical link of potential people to jobs and services.
4. The site is not located on a high-volume arterial corridor, such a CSAH 42 and
Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23) that would provide access to retail, services and
transit.
4. Recommend the re -designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south .9
acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private
Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) due to the following findings:
1. The topography, presence of natural features, its proximity to the adjacent
collector roadways and land uses.
SUMMARY:
Mr. Joel Watrud, the owner of the Apple Valley Golf Course located at 8661 140th Street
West, is requesting the following amendments to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map:
1. Re -designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density
Residential)
2. Re -designate 14.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density
Residential)
3. Re -designate 8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density
Residential)
The 23 -acre golf course property is located at the northwest corner of 140th Street West and
Garden View Drive. Adjacent uses include single-family residential to the north, single-
family, two-family and multi -family residential to the west and south, and multi -family to the
east.
A public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment requests was held
on June 19, 2019. The hearing was opened, comments taken, and the hearing was closed. The
following is a synopsis of the comments received at the public hearing, followed by any staff
comments as appropriate.
Concerns were raised that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
amendments were in conflict with the City's mission statement to promote the health
and well-being of its citizens and all that visit the city. Staff Response — The City's
mission statement is the following: The City of Apple Valley is pledged to promote and
enhance the health, safety and general well-being of its citizens and all who visit the city.
In achieving this goal, the City will:
• Provide a full range of municipal services;
• Encourage active participation;
• Promote quality development;
• Provide a balance of residential, commercial, and public uses;
• Promote employment opportunities within the community;
• Experiment with new ideas in the delivery of public services; and
• Transmit to future citizens a better and more beautiful community.
The City utilizes many available tools to ensure the ongoing health, safety and general
welfare of its residents and guests. Those tools include the comprehensive plan, as well as
the subdivision control, natural resources management and zoning chapters of the city's
code of ordinances. All of these tools will be used when considering future development on
the subject property.
Comments were received about the impact this request would have on the schools.
Staff Response — The ISD 196 demographer estimates that the average student population
is .58 students per single-family unit, .34 students per townhome unit and .32 students per
apartment unit dwelling unit. These are estimates that the school district would use for their
planning purposes, and these numbers may vary when other factors are taken into
consideration.
Elementary students would attend Westview Elementary, middle school students would
attend Falcon Ridge Middle School, and high school students would attend Apple Valley
Senior High School. School officials informed staff that all three schools would be able to
accommodate the increase in student population generated by development on the property.
The school district was provided notice of the proposed amendments for review and
comment. The district commented that the proposed amendments were not anticipated to
impact the district's operations.
Concerns were raised regarding the impact on real estate values of adjacent properties.
Staff Response — Because many different factors contribute to the value of a home, it is not
possible to attribute impacts of property value on a single adjacent land use. Property
values are impacted by overall City development patterns and not one specific land use.
The Urban Land Institute's "Higher -Density Development Myth and Fact" and "The Case
for Multifamily Housing" documents cite academic studies that show that multi family
developments do not negatively impact existing adjacent single-family home values.
In some studies, they have indicated that multi family residential adjacent to single-family
homes can have a positive impact on property values. Possible reasons for positive impact
are the following:
• Multi family developments can make an area more attractive than nearby communities
with fewer housing choices.
• They increase the pool of potential future homebuyers.
• Professional companies who are hired by a homeowners association or a apartment
management company usually ensure the ongoing maintenance of multi family
properties.
Any future building construction on the golf course property will be in compliance with the
City's exterior design requirements, zoning and subdivision codes, and State Building Code
requirements.
Concerns were raised about the increase in traffic generated by future residential
development on the golf course property and the impact to the existing road system.
Staff Response — See the attached memo from the City Engineer.
Concerns were raised about the potential loss of mature trees on the site with a
development project. Staff Response — Any development on this property will require the
submittal of a tree inventory that will identify the size, species, condition, and location of
each significant tree. A significant tree is defined as any healthy deciduous tree measuring
eight inches or greater in diameter, or any coniferous tree measuring six inches or greater
in diameter, at four and one-half feet above grade.
As with any development, a developer will be required to idents all the significant trees to
be preserved as well as any that will be removed, or lost as a result of any land -disturbing
activity. The City's ordinance requires that 10% of the significant removed must be replaced
with caliper inches within the development.
Also, approved landscape plans shall be required for any multi family development on this
site. These plans shall include size, location, quantity and species of all plant materials and
method of maintenance. The minimum cost of the landscaping installed shall be 21/2% of the
estimated building(s) construction cost.
Concerns were raised about loss of green space and the City should preserve the open
space with the purchase of the property for a public park. Staff Response — The City
promotes diverse recreational opportunities, services, facilities, and trails through the
Parks and Recreation Department. There are currently 54 public parks of various types
distributed throughout the city. These include neighborhood parks, community parks and
special use parks. The neighborhood park serve residents with a half -mile radius and
offers a variety of services from basic recreation, such as a playground, small playfield,
and a picnic shelter. Sunset and Wildwood parks are such parks that are located within a
-mile of the golf course neighborhood.
The area is also located near two community parks, which are designed to serve a larger
population. These parks provide intensive activity such as ballfields, several picnic shelters,
one or two playground areas, and open space areas. Examples of this type of park is Hayes
Park, a 25 -acre park, located within a mile of the subject property and Alimagnet Park,
an 85 -acre park that has areas for both passive and active recreation. Access to this park is
within a 1/2 -mile of the golf course property.
Like all development projects in the city, the development of this property will require park
dedication. The City will have a choice of taking the dedication in land, cash -in -lieu of land
or a combination thereof This will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision
of the property.
Concerns were received about adding more multi -family residential units when there
are existing units that are unoccupied in the city. Staff Response - On June 14, 2019,
staff attended the Minnesota Real Estate Journal State of the Residential Market
Conference. Marquette Advisors provided a comprehensive review of multi family units
throughout the metro, and community specific information. The following points illustrate
the main trends in the market:
• The multi family market has increasingly low vacancies, between zero and 2 percent
for most units, with high demand for additional units.
• Rents in the suburbs have risen significantly, particularly in the suburbs. Rents metro
wide increased by 6.7% from the first quarter in 2018 to first quarter in 2019.
• This type of rate increase, despite lower job growth numbers, means the market is still
in need of additional multi family units.
A survey of 1,977 multi family dwelling units in the city was completed in early 2019. The
survey reviewed the average rents and vacancy rates for all types of units in the city. The
vacancy rates for the first quarter of 2019 was 1.5%
A comment was received referencing a Supreme Court decision of the City of Mendota
Heights vs Mendota Golf LLC regarding the conflict between the City of Mendota
Heights Comprehensive Guide Plan designating 18 acres as "Golf Course" (GC),
while the city's zoning ordinance designated the property as "Residential" (R-1 one
family residential). Staff Response — See the attached memo to Community Development
Director Bruce Nordquist from City Attorney Michael Dougherty.
BACKGROUND:
Comprehensive Plan: The property is currently designated "PR" (Private Recreation). The
2030 Plan created this designation of "Private Recreation" to recognize the current use of the
subject property as a privately owned public golf course. This is the only property in the city
that has this designation. The property has the same designation in the draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan. It was recognized in 2009 and again in 2018, that the Apple Valley
Golf Course may face challenges in the future, primarily financial, similar to the challenges
faced by other small golf courses in the Metropolitan Area. It was understood during the
preparation of the 2030 and 2040 Plans, that these challenges might cause the property owner
to seek a change in land use.
Any change in land use must be carefully considered for the ability of the property to support
the proposed use, the fit with the surrounding area and the overall plans for Apple Valley.
The current Institutional zoning designation best reflects the present use and numerous
alternative uses may be allowed in the future. The golf course is surrounded by residential
uses that might also be evaluated for comparison as to their density and value if a change is
requested. Commercial uses are not encouraged unless those businesses have a residential
character and are integrated in a mixed-use urban design.
As stated previously, the applicant is requesting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
amendments that would re -designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low
Density Residential), 14.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density
Residential) and 8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density
Residential). The remaining text in this section are excerpts from the City's draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan, which will be applicable as this request moves through the review
process.
The "LD" (Low Density Residential) designation consists of areas in the city with primarily
single-family, detached dwellings. This is the single largest land use in Apple Valley. A large
base of owner -occupied homes promotes neighborhood stability by reducing resident turnover
and encouraging homeowner investment in private property. Limiting conflicts with high-
intensity uses ensures that property values are protected over time. Protected property values
help maintain stable neighborhoods and directly benefit local citizens through contributions to
the municipal tax base.
Low-density neighborhoods benefit from a variety of services and institutions, including
parks, playgrounds, schools, religious institutions, and appropriate -scale commercial. A
system of safe and well-designed sidewalks and trails is essential to connect with schools,
parks, downtown, and other destinations in the community. A variety of housing types may be
built in Low Density Residential areas including single-family detached dwellings, duplexes,
twin homes, townhomes, and other types of attached housing at densities of 2-6 units per
acre.
Outlot A, Cobblestones I addition is a .5 -acre outlot that is currently used as a tee box for
hole #2. The characteristics associated with this property are consistent with the "LD"
designation.
The "MD" (Medium Density Residential) designation provides for single-family living
options which is becoming an increasingly attractive option for aging baby boomers seeking a
transition to a living environment that offers independence without the maintenance
requirements and a property tax bill associated with conventional single-family detached
housing. In addition, Medium Density Residential typically provides housing at a lower price
point than low density residential and helps enable the City to meet its share of regional
affordable housing requirements. "MD" land uses include townhomes, other attached single-
family dwellings, and low-rise apartments and condominiums at densities that range from 6-
12 units per acre. This designation fits with the "M-4", "M-5", "M-6", and "PD" zoning
districts.
The site is relatively level with the exception of a couple of small elevation changes near the
second and ninth greens, and along the north and eastern edges of the property. The site abuts
single-family residential to the north and west, and two community collector streets to the
south and east.
Three wetlands are located on the site as well mature vegetation. These features were
established as part of the development of the golf course. Any development on the site
would need adhere regulations related wetland management and tree removal and
replacement.
The "HD" (High Density Residential) designation are areas for attached multiple -family
structures (apartments and condominiums) at densities greater than 12 units per acre. High
Density Residential neighborhoods benefit from proximity to services such as shopping,
transit, daycare, recreation, and other similar uses. Retail shopping centers and service
providers likewise benefit from a dense local customer base. Providing these uses near to
high-density residential leads to mutual efficiencies and lessens dependence on private
vehicles. High-density residential developments should be located where services are
currently available and convenient or are expected to be in the future.
Developments with densities of up to 40 units per acre are allowed in the areas within and
adjacent to the downtown if certain performance standards in the zoning code are met. This
would not be applicable to with this property
The City benefits from high-density development by capitalizing on efficiencies in the
provision of infrastructure, services, and attached -building construction, and the increased
concentration of taxpayers per unit area. Linking people to jobs and services is critical. High-
density developments can be leveraged for economic development purposes and suburban
transit -oriented development. As such, they are frequently located on high-volume arterial
corridors with access to retail and services. Often, high-density residential is considered as a
"use" buffer between lower -density residential and higher -intensity commercial or industrial
uses. This goal is rational in theory, but care should be taken to ensure that undesirable
impacts are not inequitably off-loaded onto a greater number of residents. Buffer treatments,
including landscaping and building/site orientation, can minimize the impacts of light, noise,
and traffic on high-density areas. The strategic location of a row of garages, for example, can
shield apartments from the noise and activity of a nearby highway.
High Density Residential areas include multiple -family structures (apartments and
condominiums) at densities greater than 12 units per acre to the extent allowed by the zoning
ordinance. The HD designation fits with "M-7", "M-8", and "PD" zoning districts. High
Density Residential requires additional provision of parking, infiltration, and buffering from
incompatible uses. Building setback, bulli requirements, lot -coverage requirements, and
parking requirements are outlined in the zoning code.
High-density residential should be considered on property located adjacent to or near arterial
roads that can provide a buffer between lower density residential uses and commercial or
industrial uses. The site also will not provide that close proximity to the desired a link to
jobs, retail and services.
Although, the site abuts two major collector roads, the desire is to have the high-density
residential located closer to arterial roads, such as CSAH 23 and 42, which provides more
transportation opportunities via the City's transit services and better pedestrian access to
goods and services in the community.
Zoning: The zoning ordinance is used to create zoning districts, identify uses that are
allowed in each district. It also identifies area standards and performance standards that
regulate such things as the minimum lot area, size and location of a building or structure,
building setbacks from property lines, building height, lot coverage, maximum impervious
surface within a particular zoning district.
The property is currently zoned "P" (Institutional). Institutional districts are area designed to
serve the public and quasi -public uses. Permitted uses include schools, public libraries and
art galleries, parks and playgrounds, recreational facilities or athletic fields, religious
facilities, cemeteries, government facilities, non-profit clubs and lodges, public hospitals and
acre facilities, and golf courses. Any re -designation of the property will require a change
in its current zoning.
The majority of the property in the city currently designated "LD" (Low Density Residential)
are zoned "R-1", "R-2", "R-3" or "R -CL", which area districts that permit detached single-
family dwellings. This designation also allows for "R-5" (Two -Family Residential) and "M-
1", "M-2", and "M-3" (Multi -Family Residential), and "PD" (Planned Development) zoning
districts.
Property designated "MD" (Medium Density Residential) include townhomes, other attached
single-family dwellings, and low-rise apartments and condominiums at densities that range
from 6-12 units per acre. This designation fits with the "M-4", "M-5", "M-6", and "PD"
zoning districts.
Finally, "HD" (High Density Residential) designated areas include multiple -family structures
(apartments and condominiums) at densities greater than 12 units per acre to the extent
allowed by the zoning ordinance. The "M-7", "M-8", and "PD" zoning districts are typically
located in the "HD" designated areas.
Preliminary Plat: Approximately 14 acres of the subject property is unplatted with the
remaining nine acres platted as outlots. Any development of the property will require the
subdivision of the property. Some of the required elements of a subdivision include the
dedication of right-of-way, public drainage (including storm water ponding) and utility
easements, and park dedication in the form of land and/or cash -in -lieu of land dedication.
Availability of Municipal Utilities: Public utilities are available and would be extended into
the site to serve any development. Storm water management will be an important issue with
any development of the property. Onsite management and discharge will be essential to any
future development of the property.
A wetland delineation report has been prepared for this site. Three wetlands have
been identified and delineated. Any development will be subject to all applicable federal,
state, and local wetland regulations.
It should be also noted that an 80 -foot wide pipeline easement bisects the property. The
location of this utility will impact any development as it is generally understood that uses
over a pipeline easement are restrictive and no buildings or landscaping shall be placed
within an easement of this type.
The City Engineer has provided additional information regarding public utilities and wetlands
in his attached memo.
Street Classifications: The site abuts Garden View Drive on the east, 140th Street West on
the west and Hollins Court on the north. Garden View Drive and 140th Street West are
major collectors, which are designed to collect traffic from neighborhoods and employment
centers and distribute it to the city arterial system. Hollins Court is a local street, whose
primary use is to serve local transportation needs such as gaining access to the property
bordering it.
Local streets will likely serve any on-site development. Improvements to the abutting
collector roads will be evaluated as part of any development project on this property.
The City Engineer has done a preliminary analysis on traffic impacts related to future
development of the subject property and his findings are included in the attached memo.
Public Hearing Comments: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19,
2019. The hearing was opened, comments received and the hearing was closed. A synopsis
of the comments and staffs responses to those comments are contained in the Summary
section of this report.
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Background Material
Background Material
Background Material
Correspondence
Location Map
Comp Plan Map
Comp Plan Map
Background Material
Background Material
APPLE VALLEY GOLF COURSE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Property Location:
8661 140th Street West
Legal Description:
Comprehensive
Plan Designation
"PR" (Private Recreation)
Zoning
Classification
"P" (Institutional)
Existing Platting
14 acres are unplatted with the remainder platted as outlots
Current Land Use
Golf Course
Size:
23 acres
Topography:
Varying, typical of a golf course
Existing
Vegetation
Grasses and vegetation associated with a golf course
Other Significant
Natural Features
Presence of wetlands
Adjacent
Properties/Land
Uses
NORTH
Single -Family Residential Dwellings
Comprehensive Plan
"LD" (Low Density Residential)
Zoning/Land Use
"R-3" (Single Family Residential)
SOUTH
Single and Two -Family Residential and Townhome Dwellings
Comprehensive Plan
"LD" (Low Density Residential)
Zoning/Land Use
"R-3" (Single Family Residential), "R-5"
(Two Family Residential), and "M -3C"
(Multiple Family Residential)
EAST
Wildwood Townhomes and Private Open Space
Comprehensive Plan
"LD" (Low Density Residential)
Zoning/Land Use
"M -3C" (Medium Density Residential) and
"P" (Institutional)
WEST
Single Family Residential Dwellings
Comprehensive Plan
"LD" (Low Density Residential)
Zoning/Land Use
"R-3" (Single Family Residential)
Dougherty
Molenda
Attorneys
Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A.
MEMORANDUM
To: Bruce Nordquist, Community Development Director
From: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney
Date: June 26, 2019
Re: Amendment to Comprehensive Guide Plan
Application of Apple Valley East Golf Course
14985 Glazier Avenue, Suite 525
Apple Valley, MN 55124
(952) 953-8820 Direct
(962) 432-3136 Office
(952) 432-3780 Fax
Mdougherty@dmshb.com Email
At the June 19, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, a resident spoke of a Minnesota Supreme Court case:
Mendota Golf, LLP vs. City of Mendota Heights.' A member of the City Council has asked that we opine as to
the relevance of Mendota Golf in relation to the application before the Planning Commission. In doing so, we
want to note that the facts and circumstances surrounding Mendota Golf are unique. The substantive value of the
Court's decision can be more fully understood in the decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Wensmann
Realty Inc. v. City of Eagan 2 (which will be discussed later in the memo).
MENDOTA GOLF DECISION
The genesis of the conflict found in Mendota Golf stemmed from the City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive
Guide Plan designating 18 acres as "Golf Course" (GC), while the city's zoning ordinance designated the property
as "Residential" (R-1 one family residential). In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature adopted a statute directing cities
to reconcile conflicts between comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances by requiring zoning ordinances to be
brought into conformance with the comprehensive plan.3
In 2003, the owner submitted an application to change the comprehensive plan designation of the property from
golf course to low density residential. The City Council unanimously denied the application. The property owner
brought suit asking the Court to issue a writ to require the city to amend the comprehensive plan, arguing that
the city had a duty to amend the plan and that the city acted arbitrarily by failing to adopt a rational justification
for denying the amendment.
The Supreme Court held that the city did not have a duty to amend the comprehensive plan to correlate with the
zoning. Rather, it held that the city's duty was to "reconcile" the conflict between the comprehensive guide plan
and the zoning regulations, which could be accomplished by amending the zoning regulations. With respect to
whether the city acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the Supreme Court found that the city properly
considered and articulated a legitimate interest in protecting open and recreational space, as well as reaffirming
the historical use of the property. The matter was sent back to district court to issue a writ directing the city to
reconcile the conflict between its comprehensive guide plan and zoning regulations (which the city acknowledged
it had to do.)
One of the key outcomes of Mendota Golf stemmed from the dissent authored by Justice Barry Anderson. Justice
Anderson concurred with the decision to reconcile the comprehensive guide plan and the zoning. However, he
August 1, 2019
Page 2 of 2
also opened the issue as to whether the city's rationale to retain open space and recreational opportunities
constituted a taking which required the city to pay the owner just compensation. Justice Anderson noted that the
owner had not asserted a taking, but invited an amendment to the pleadings to allow such to occur. Ultimately,
the City acquired the property following the approval by its voters to spend 2.8 million dollars.
WENSMANN REALTY
The year after Mendota Golf, the Minnesota Supreme Court was faced with the issue raised by Justice Anderson
in his dissent. In Wensmann Realty, the Court first considered whether the City of Eagan' s denial of a
comprehensive plan amendment was supported by a rational basis. The city's articulated reasons were: to preserve
open and recreational space, to reaffirm the historical use of designations; to avoid the disruption of surrounding
neighborhoods due to increased traffic; and to avoid burdens on the school systems. Based on its holding in
Mendota Golf and a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that Wensmann Realty had failed to
establish that the City lacked a rational basis for its decision in denying the application.
However, unlike the property owner in Mendota Golf, Wensmann Realty also included a claim that the city' s
action constituted a taking. The bulk of the Wensmann Realty decision centered on whether the city' s denial
resulted in a regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The Court noted that the citizens of Eagan
clearly valued the open space that the golf course in question provided, but if the property owner is forced to leave
the property undeveloped for the benefit of neighborhood land owners, without an opportunity to pursue a
reasonable use of the property, the city is, in essence, asking the property owner to carry a burden that in all
fairness should be borne by the entire community. Ultimately, the Court found that it could not determine from
the record whether the city' s denial left the property owner with any reasonable use of the property. The Supreme
Court then remanded the matter back to the district court for proceedings consistent with its opinion, thereby
requiring a determination of whether there remained a reasonable use of the property or whether the city had
effected a regulatory taking.
Similar to the outcome in Mendota Golf, the City settled the lawsuit.
APPLE VALLEY EAST GOLF COURSE
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Unlike the facts in Mendota Golf,
there is no existing conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations with respect to the use
of the property. Should the City amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property, the City is required
to amend the zoning regulation within nine months, so as to eliminate any conflict with Comprehensive Plan.4
As in all of its land use decisions, the City must have a rational basis for its decision that is supported by the facts
in the record. Should the City' s decision leave the landowner without a reasonable use of the property, the decision
may result in a claim that a regulatory taking has occurred.
' Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006).
2 Wenzman Realty Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2007).
s Minn. Stat. §473.858, Subd. 1 (1995).
4 Minn. Stat. §473.865, Subd. 3 (2019).
www.dmshb.com
Dougherty
Molendaill
Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A.
•••
vies*
•••
CITY OF Apple
Valley
MEMO
Public Works
TO: Tom Lovelace, Planner
FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, PE, City Engineer
DATE: August 1, 2019
SUBJECT: Apple Valley East Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Traffic
1. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates both Garden View and 140th as Major
Collectors. The posted speed limit on 140th Street is 45 mph, while Garden View Drive
is posted at 40 mph.
a. The capacity of a 4 -lane undivided urban roadway (140th Street) is 24,000 —
28,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on 140th Street are at 10,740 ADT with 2040
projected volumes to be 14,700 ADT.
b. The capacity of a 2 -lane undivided urban roadway (Garden View north of 140th)
is 14,000 — 15,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on Garden View (north of 140th) are at
2,652 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 4,000 ADT.
c. The capacity of a 2 -lane undivided urban roadway (Garden View south of 140th)
is 14,000 — 15,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on Garden View (south of 140th) are at
4,708 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 6,100 ADT.
2. See table below for the estimated roadway impacts from three different scenarios. The
trips were generated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition daily estimates
for low density, medium density, and high density residential developments. The three
scenarios for which trip generation was completed include the proposed scenario (Table
1), the recommended scenario (Table 2), and the potential scenario (Table 3). The three
scenarios include a different mix of densities.
Table 1. Applicant Proposed Scenario Trip Generation with
Full Build out of Site
Type of Units
Acres
Units
Per
Acre
Trips/Unit
Total
Trips
Low Density
0.5
2
9.5
9.5
Medium Density
14.5
12
7.5
1305
High Density
8
24
5.5
1056
Total
Trips
2371
Table 2. Staff Recommended Scenario Trip Generation with
Full Build out of Site
Type of Units
Acres
Units
Per
Acre
Trips/Unit
Total
Trips
Low Density
0.5
2
9.5
9.5
Medium Density
22.5
12
7.5
2025
High Density
0
24
5.5
0
Total
Trips
2035
Table 3. Potential Net Acreage (total site less gas easement,
wetlands and storm water) Scenario Trip Generation
Type of Units
Acres
Units
Per
Acre
Trips/Unit
Total
Trips
Low Density
0.5
2
9.5
9.5
Medium Density
8
12
7.5
720
High Density
0
24
5.5
0
Total
Trips
730
3. The trips were then distributed to the area roadways based on a directional distribution
that was estimated based on existing volume patterns and engineering judgement. It was
assumed that the proposed development would have one access point to 140th Street
(outside of the single low density unit on Hollins Court). Impacts for each scenario were
then developed based on the trip generation and distribution. The potential roadway
impacts were then evaluated, included the amount of new trips expected on the roadway
segments and a check of the capacity of those segments. The analysis was completed for
the Applicant proposed scenario (Table 4), the staff recommended scenario (Table 5), and
the potential scenario with the gas easement, wetlands, buffers, right of way and storm
water land area deducted from total acreage (Table 6).
Table 4. Applicant
Proposed Scenario
Roadway Impacts
with Full Build out
of Site
Public Roadway
Systems Impact
Roadway
Cross
Section
Ex.
AAD
T
Estimat
ed
AADT
Increase
Propose
d FutureCapacity
AADT
Percent
Change
in
AADT
Roadw
ay
Capacit
Volume to
Ratio
LOS
Garden View Drive N
of 140th Street
2 Lane
Undivide
d Urban
2650
360
3010
14%
10000
0.30
A
140th St S of
McAndrews Road
4 Lane
Undivide
d Urban
10900
1425
12325
13%
28000
0.44
B
140th St W of Garden
View Drive
4 Lane
Undivide
d Urban
10300
950
11250
9%
28000
0.40
B
Hollins Court
2 Lane
Residenti
al*
100
10
110
10%
1000
0.11
A
*Typical roadway capacity of residential roadways is estimated as 1000 trips per day. Other
roadway capacities obtained from the City of Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan
Table 5. Staff Recommended Scenario Roadway Impacts with Full Build out of Site
Public Roadway
Systems Impact
Roadway
Cross Section
E g tin
AADT
Estimat
ed
AADT
Increase
Proose
d Fufore
AADT
Percent
Change
in
AADT
Roadw
ay
Capacit
y*
Volu
me
Capac
it y
Ratio
LOS
Garden View Drive N of
140th Street
2 Lane
Undivided
Urban
2650
310
2960
12%
10000
0.30
A
140th St S of
McAndrews Road
4 Lane
Undivided
Urban
10900
1225
12125
11%
28000
0.43
B
140th St W of Garden
View Drive
4 Lane
Undivided
Urban
10300
815
11115
8%
28000
0.40
B
Hollins Court
2 Lane
Residential*
100
10
110
10%
1000
0.11
A
*Typical roadway capacity of residential roadways is estimated as 1000 trips per day. Other
roadway capacities obtained from the City of Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan
Table 6. Potential
Net Acreage (total
site less gas
easement, wetlands
and storm water)
Scenario Trip
Generation
Public Roadway
Systems Impact
Roadwa
y Cross
Section
Ex.
AA
DT
AADT
Increa
se
Propose
d Future
AADT
Percent
Change
in
AADT
Roadwa
y
Capacit
y*
V/C
Ratio
LOS
2 Lane
Garden View Drive
N of 140th Street
Undivid
ed
265
0
110
2760
4%
10000
0.28
A
Urban
4 Lane
140th St S of
McAndrews Road
Undivid
ed
109
00
440
11340
4%
28000
0.41
B
Urban
4 Lane
140th St W of
Garden View Drive
Undivid
ed
103
00
295
10595
3%
28000
0.38
B
Urban
2 Lane
Hollins Court
Residen
tial*
100
10
110
10%
1000
0.11
A
*Typical roadway capacity of residential roadways is estimated as 1000 trips per day Other
roadway capacities obtained from the City of Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan
4. Public Roadway Systems Impact
a. The daily traffic expected to be generated with the proposed change to land use is
expected to be approximately 2,371 Total Trips assuming all 22.5 acres are
developed.
b. The daily traffic expected to be generated with the staff recommended change to
land use is expected to be approximately 2,035 Total Trips assuming all 22.5
acres are developed.
c. The daily traffic expected to be generated with the staff recommended change to
land use is expected to be approximately 730 Total Trips assuming only 8.0 acres
are available for housing after right of way, gas easement, wetlands, and storm
water needs of the site.
d. The roadways are expected to be able to accommodate the 3-14% (depending on
specific land use scenario) increase in traffic. A separate operational and
intersection analysis will need to be completed at the time of a land use
application for review of access spacing needs and traffic mitigation.
Sanitary Sewer
5. Public 8" Sanitary Sewer is available within the 140th Street ROW which drains to a Trunk
Sanitary sewer within Garden View and ultimately discharges to an MCES meter
connection at the Lakeville/Apple Valley border near Cedar Avenue and 160th Street. The
available capacity in the trunk system varies from 40-60% remaining capacity.
Water main
6. Public 8" water main is available with 140th Street ROW north of the 138th Street
Intersection. Water main would need to be extended to the southeast along 140th Street and
connected to the Garden View 12" Trunk Water main to adequately serve the site. Current
available Fire Flow at 20 psi is <1,500 gpm. Average pressures are ±61 psi within the
Middle Pressure Zone.
Storm water Management
7. The site is located within the Alimagnet Lake Watershed. Alimagnet Lake is currently
listed as impaired for Excess Nutrients. In accordance with 2018 Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP), several storm water policies would need to be addressed for
new or redevelopment of the site:
a. Policy 6.1 The City requires compliance with all applicable post -construction
water quality criteria for new and redevelopment activity adopted by the Black
Dog Watershed Management Organization and the Vermillion River Watershed
Joint Powers Organization, as described in the BDWMO Watershed Management
Plan (2012, as amended) and VRWJPO Standards (2016, as amended).
b. Policy 6.2 The City requires that all new, redeveloped, or expanded commercial,
industrial, multiple residential, or institutional development provide infiltration
for a volume equivalent to 0.5 inches of runoff over the area of the development.
c. Policy 6.3 The City requires that new and redevelopment activity of 0.2 acres or
more shall be required to achieve no -net -increase in average annual total
suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) loading compared to the pre -
development condition of the site.
d. Policy 6.4 The City may require additional treatment measures as needed for any
development or re -development activity to protect downstream receiving waters,
including, but not limited to, additional measures in TMDLs or WRAPS
watersheds plans.
8. The site is also located adjacent to where areas of localized flooding has occurred during
the 10- and 100 -year, 24 hour storm events:
a. Holyoke Path and Holyoke Lane
b. Garden View Drive just south of 140th Street W.
9. In accordance with SWMP policy 1.5, the city requires that new development and
redevelopment activities do not increase peak runoff rates relative to pre -project runoff
rates for the 1 -year, 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year critical storm event. The City may
impose more stringent rate control requirements if the capacity of the downstream system
is limited.
a. The downstream system (AL -P5 and AL -P6) from the site is limited in storm water
capacity and any new or redevelopment will require more stringent rate control
requirements.
Natural Resources
10. Three (3) Wetlands were identified on site per the Wetland Delineation Report submitted to
the City of Apple Valley on July 25, 2018.
a. All 3 wetlands were determined to be Manage 2 wetlands and in accordance with
Wetland and buffer policies within the 2018 SWMP. The following policies would
need to be addressed for new or redevelopment of the site:
i. Policy 4.4 The City requires water quality treatment of all storm water
prior to discharge to wetlands.
ii. Policy 4.5 The City requires that hydrologic impacts to wetlands resulting
from development and redevelopment activities do not exceed the
following:
Wetland
Classification
Allowable
bounce
Allowable
inundation
period
(1 -year event)
Allowable
inundation
period
(2 -year event)
Allowable
inundation
period
(10 -year event)
Protect
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Manage 2
Existing + 1.0ft
Existing + 2
days
Existing + 2
days
Existing + 14
days
iii. Policy 4.6 The City requires vegetated buffers zones adjacent to wetlands
to be established for development and redevelopment activities. Required
buffer zone widths from the delineated edge of the wetland are based on
the type of development and wetland classification, as follows:
Development
Type
Wetland
Classification
Average buffer
width (ft)
Minimum buffer
width (ft)
Minimum
building setback
from buffer (ft)
New
developments
and subdivisions
Manage 2
30
25
10
iv. Policy 4.7 The City requires that protective buffer zones be established
consistent with the procedures and criteria established in City ordinance
chapter 152.57. The protective buffer zone shall be memorialized in
perpetuity by a written document approved by the City and a certified
survey of the property which shall be recorded by Dakota County. The
document shall establish the location of any buffer zones, restrictions,
allowances, and management requirements.
Lovelace, Tom
From: Mike McGettigan _
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Cc: Daniel Legerski
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course - Redevelopment
Mr. Lovelace -
We currently reside at 8589 136th Ct W and have our backyard adjacent to the Apple Valley Golf Course. I
talked with Alex Sharpe on Friday about the re -designation of the golf course into mixed density
housing. Changes to the golf course would have a big impact our property value and backyard aesthetics
based on the current property line in our backyard. We are awaiting additional documentation to be released,
but we had the following questions:
1. What is the timeline and process with the City planning commission? Could land redevelopment be
approved at the planning meeting on June 19 and immediately advance to City Council?
2. Is there a typical timeline on a land re -designation of this type?
3. There is a thin strip of land, County parcel ID 01-18150-00-040, that hugs the residential area. County
records indicate this land is owned by Joel Watrud and is 0.33 acres. If there is an easement in place
for this land, how would we find out the details about it? If plans move forward with rezoning, would the
current rezoning request limit the possibility of the purchase of that particular parcel. For example if we
and the neighbors on either side of us wanted to purchase it to extend the depths of our current lots
thereby giving us some protection to maintain and even expand the trees that currently edge our lot and
the golf course land and thus protect some of the view and privacy we currently have, would that even
be permissible with the way the rezoning request is currently being made.
4. Are the ponds on the golf course considered wetlands and/or will they be required to -be preserved?
5. Would the building of residences on the property result in major excavation for changes to the gas
pipeline that runs through the property?
6. We would prefer to see the golf course remain a golf course or park land. Is there any chance of the
city buying it as such?
Unfortunately we will be out of town next week, so will miss both meetings. Once the detailed report is posted,
we will review and submit comments.
Thank you,
Michael McGetttigan
Daniel Legerski
8589 136th Ct W.
Lovelace, Tom
From: Carole Elfstrum
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 8:39 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Cc: Doug Elfstrum
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course Redevelopment
Mr. Lovelace,
We reside at 8580 136th Ct W and have our backyard adjacent to the Apple Valley Golf Course. We received the notice
about the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to re -designate the Golf Course from PR Private Recreation
to a combination of Low Density, Medium Density and High Density Residential. We have significant concerns about this
proposal, including the following:
1. Our backyard is adjacent to an area that is proposed to change to high density residential. This change would
have a significantly negative impact on our property value as well as the aesthetics of our backyard.
2. Given the hillside shared by our property and the golf course, we do not understand how high density housing is
possible in this area. Any excavation in that area would have a negative impact on our property.
3. Our preference would be for the zoning to remain the same as it has been for over forty years. But if it has to
change, why would anything other than single family homes be considered given that all of the properties
bordering the golf course are single family homes?
4. Adding high density housing in this area would have a negative effect on traffic volume. If additional access
points are added to 140th St and Gardenview Ave, there would be increased risk of accidents
5. Are the ponds on the golf course considered wetlands and thus subject to environmental review?
6. Our understanding is that outlet D is an area that provides an easement to the golf course, but the property is
actually part of our parcel. If the property is sold and no longer a golf course, then that easement would go
away, correct?
7. Finally, as we celebrate Apple Valley's 50th anniversary, shouldn't we try to preserve this parcel of open, green
space that has been part of our city's history? Perhaps the city could purchase the property and preserve the
Private Recreation rating by developing a park or some other green space usage.
We will attend the meetings next week in order to learn more about this proposal.
Thank you,
Carole and Doug Elfstrum
-.4
• -rr
j
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Concern
From: Wallace, Tamara <twallace@lakevillemn.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:35 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Concern
Good afternoon,
Unfortunately, I am unable to make the Planning Commission meeting tonight, but I wanted to have the opportunity to
express my specific concern with the proposed plans for the Apple Valley Golf Course at the corner of County Road 42
and Garden View Drive. I live at 14113 Garden View Court in Apple Valley, and on a given day it is extremely
challenging to even turn out of our cul-de-sac as the traffic on Garden View Drive is so steady. This is almost doubled in
complexity when there is snow on the ground, as the dip in our neighborhood requires us to trek up a hill to get to Garden
View Drive, and if a car is coming you essentially lose all momentum to get out of the complex as the entrance is never
fully plowed. There are already a ton of twin homes along Garden View Drive which all seem to be rental homes with a
lot of in/ out traffic, changing occupants, and at times louder music. My concern is that the development of an apartment
complex in an area that already has townhomes across the street, lots of single family homes, and intersects two busy
streets, will mean a huge influx in traffic as well as noise; in addition to the demographic suffering depending on what
type of apartment housing is going into this space.
I would have loved to maintain the existing golf course as I think it adds a pertinent amenity to the community; but given
it seems like that process has already been decided, I would ask the Planning Commission to at least be cognizant of the
neighboring homes, which are all extremely nice with well-developed value. The development of high-end townhomes
would make sense and be appropriate for the area; but putting an apartment building at all - especially one that is
affordable housing for example - could drastically lower home values, create an unfortunate eye sore for those who had a
view of once quiet, open grass, and change the entire neighborhood feel. Yes plans/ zoning are always susceptible to
change, but I would ask that the Planning Commission consider that some of us are literally just hearing about this with a
sign posted at the corner — and though we may not be right across from the area directly, we will be just as impacted if the
demographic, noise, and traffic flow increases to this area.
This could be an opportunity to at least add some amenities that did not exist like the extension of a trail system, as well as
adding a neighborhood park.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tamara & Blake Wallace
14113 Garden View Court
Apple Valley, MN 55124
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Land use
From: Tara Odegard _
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Land use
Dear Tom,
I just wanted to send a note because I am unable to attend the public hearing this evening. I am NOT in favor of
the proposed use of the land from the Apple Valley Golf Course. Increasing the population in this area with
medium and high density residences would negatively impact it's current residents in school population, traffic,
and home values.
The golf course is beautiful and I enjoy the green space every time I drive through there. Please consider
keeping the green space with a park or, at most, with single family homes. Many homeowners would love the
chance to build so far north in the South metro.
Thank you for your consideration and caring about what the residents in this area care about!
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 8:31 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Apple Valley Golf Course
From: amanda cornell
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 9:40 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course
Hi Tom,
It is my understanding that the Apple Valley Golf Course is going to be sold to a housing developer. Please,
please, please reconsider! Adding that many homes will not be an asset to Apple Valley. We already have
many places where there is medium and high density housing in the area. If the golf course can't be maintained,
please use the area for other kinds of recreational activities. We need more prairie restoration, natural
playgrounds, gardens, etc in our area. Our city needs more green space and not less especially in a time of
global warming. To help in the reversal of global warming, we need more green space with prairies and trees.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
An Apple Valley resident,
Amanda Cornell
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 8:30 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Apple Valley Golf Course
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 10:25 AM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course
Mr. Lovelace,
I've been bombarded with literature about the Apple Valley Golf Course two blocks from
my home being sold and converted to an apartment complex. I didn't know the Golf
Course was for sale, or is the owner selling it to the city or developers? I don't use the
golf course often, but do enjoy it. I do notice they get very little play. I attribute this to
their high cost for green fees.
If this is converted to Apartments, what do you project the impact to the home values
will be in the neighborhood? Our real estate taxes are already very high. My wife and I
are recent retirees and like living in Minnesota, but are really getting fed up with the
taxation and politics of the state. Been in Apple Valley for 37 years.
Jon Hennessy
13951 Holyoke Path
Apple Valley, MN 55124
9!
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 8:31 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: AV Golf Course Land Use Notice
From: Natalie Flynn <r
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 9:55 AM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Re: AV Golf Course Land Use Notice
Hi Joan - thank you for the information, is it possible to submit comments by letter or email? I will be out of
town next week for work. I'm all for more town -homes and smaller apartment complexes like those across the
street on garden view. But I would hate to see a 5 story Goliath of an apartment complex on the corner in that
high density area. That is just not the aesthetic of the neighborhood.
Natalie
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:32 AM Murphy, Joan <JMu:phy(g ci.apple-valley.rnn.us> wrote:
Natalie,
Below is the description from the City Planner Tom Lovelace. Public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 19, at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Center at 7100 — 147th Street.
Consider Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments to allow for the re -designation of .5
acres of the 23 -acre site from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential/2-6
units per acre), 14.5 acres to "MD" (Medium Density Residential/6-12 units per acre) and the
remaining 8 acres to "HD" (High Density Residential/12+ units per acre). The site is located at
8661 140th Street West and the applicant is Joel Watrud, the property owner. The staff
reviewer for this project is Tom Lovelace.
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 8:30 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Golf course land
Original Message
From: sara.brigger@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 9:50 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Golf course land
Hello -
I live at 13632 Gotham Court and would like to advocate that you DO NOT approve the
proposal to develop the golf course into medium or high density housing areas. When we built
our home 10 years ago and chose Apple Valley as our community, we chose the city and the
neighborhood because of the quiet, residential area, green spaces, quality schools and lack of
congestion. Changing this will do a disservice to our neighborhood and our community.
I'm particularly concerned about our local elementary school, as many neighbors already opt to
open enroll to other schools because of the more mobile population of the school which has
resulted in lower test scores. If additional high density housing becomes available in the
neighborhood, this will put an even bigger strain on the school and result in even more open
enrollment, which will have a negative effect on the community school. Families like ours will
no longer find these neighborhoods appealing if the community schools cannot attract long-term
neighborhood residents that provide enrollment stability.
Please, please consider the many current residents that chose this city, and this neighborhood, to
raise their families and invest in their homes. Do not turn a quiet zone and beautiful green space
into a congested area with lower property values.
Sara Dziuk
Sent from my iPad
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 8:30 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: golf course rezoning
From: Janet Malz
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:06 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: golf course rezoning
Hi. I'll be unable to attend the June 19 Planning Commission meeting about the rezoning of the golf course on
140th St. It seems that we are becoming more of just an overpopulated fast food suburb. Now we are taking
away some affordable family fun and replacing it with more housing and traffic.
My concern is that we are building over so much green space to allow more residents and forgetting about
leaving any beauty for the current residents. It's disappointing to see the direction that the city is taking.
I hope more consideration will be given to current residents and improving or at least maintaining their quality
of life before creating more apartment buildings and tax revenue.
Sincerely,
Janet Malz
14242 Glencove Trail
Apple Valley, MN 55124
<>«>«><
r
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 8:30 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Public Hearing on Golf Course
Original Message
From: Larry Gunville
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 2:57 FM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Public Hearing on Golf Course
Tom,
We oppose the bulldozing of the golf course on Garden View and 140th. We do not need any
more apartment buildings or living quarters in this area. It will negatively affect our
neighborhood and destroy an iconic recreation facility in our city. Traffic will be affected, and it
will decrease the value of the homes in the area. More people will also mean more congestion in
our neighborhood and overcrowded schools.
Thank You.
Larry Gunville & Stan Trom
Apple Valley Residents
1
SEG
Dear Mayor Hamann -Roland and City Council Members,
My name is Kathy Lundin. In 1987 my husband and I built our family home right
behind the first green of the Apple Valley Golf Course. We built there because it was
beautiful, quiet and peaceful. Now, 32 years later, we are retired and loving our
peaceful, family -centered, quiet cul-de- sac. We are devastated that there is a good
possibility that this is going to change dramatically for us and our neighbors. We
knew that there was a possibility that some day this wouldn't be a golf course
anymore, but we certainly never thought that the city of Apple Valley would be
willing to drastically change the quality of life of residents who have lived here for
decades by permitting apartment buildings and medium density townhomes to be
built in our quiet neighborhood.
Since I feel very strongly that this proposal presents an extremely poor use of this
beautiful land for Apple Valley residents, I searched the city website to see if there is
any stated philosophy concerning land use. I found something very interesting. On
p. 18 of the Land Use Section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for Apple Valley it is
stated, and I quote: "The City seeks to maintain the integrity of existing
neighborhoods." No stretch of the imagination could say that apartment buildings
and stacked townhomes could maintain the integrity of our quiet neighborhoods
filled with mainly single family homes. Remember, many of us have lived on a golf
course. It is an extremely drastic change to go from a single Family home cul de sac
on a golf course to a backyard filled with apartments. Page 18 also states that "the
exact density will be dependent upon compatibility of the proposed development's
off-site impacts with those of adjacent existing developments". It is stressed over
and over again in this document that existing neighborhoods need to be impacted as
little as possible by new developments. I strongly believe that these proposed
amendments go against the philosophy of the comprehensive plan of Apple Valley.
This area should be zoned Low Density to ensure that the new properties are more
similar to the existing ones.
On page 3 of that same document it states that "The development of vacant infill
parcels near and within residential neighborhoods must be compatible in use, size
and scale with adjacent properties." Once again, this proposed rezoning is in total
disagreement with this statement from the Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Apartment buildings and stacked townhomes are not at all compatible in size or
scale with our single family homes. If you agree to this rezoning you are completely
ignoring your own comprehensive plan!!!! I don't think the residents of Apple Valley
will have much respect for a city government that doesn't follow the guidelines that
they themselves have set.
The golf course is a beautiful, natural area in a part of Apple Valley that doesn't have
a lot of green space. It provides an aesthetically pleasing break within all of the
residential spaces. Flow sad it will be if all of those beautiful old trees are removed
and the ponds are in the shadows of apartments! On page 18 of the Comprehensive
plan that talked about new developments, it states "The exact density... will be
dependent upon... the ability of the proposed development to preserve specific site
characteristics such as slopes, significant vegetation, wetlands and the like." No one
can convince me that the rows of townhomes and apartment buildings that are
being proposed will preserve the site characteristics of the golf course. The ground
most certainly would have to be leveled and many trees would be removed. There
definitely would not be much green space remaining!
On p. 3 of the Comprehensive Plan it is stated that high density residential
developments will be located in areas of the city where services, such as shopping,
are available and convenient. This is not true of the golf course land. The only
shopping that is convenient is a gas station and a co-op, and I don't think either one
of those would fill all of the needs of apartment dwellers. Almost all of the other
Apple Valley apartment buildings are near business areas, such as on Pennock and
near Kelly Park. As far as I could tell when I looked at a map of present apartments
there are none built right in the middle of a residential area!!!
The number of new residents that this proposal would create will cause a significant
negative impact on traffic on 140c' Street and Gardenview. There is already a lot of
traffic on 140th especially during the rush hours. Adding this large number of new
residents will cause huge traffic issues. Page 18 of the Comprehensive Plan states
that the capacity of the infrastructure needs to he considered when planning any
new development. I believe this potential traffic issue should raise red flags.
This northwest section of Apple Valley is a very nice, safe residential area. Housing
in this area is in high demand. It is going to be much harder to sell homes in these
nice neighborhoods when there is high density housing right around the corner.
People would most certainly choose a similar home in a nearby community that is
surrounded by other single family homes and some green space.
As you make your decision please put yourselves in our shoes. If this amendment is
passed it will have a significant negative impact on the quality of lives of people in
our neighborhoods. Property values will certainly suffer. Traffic and noise will be
unbearable. Our beautiful green space filled with fully grown trees and ponds will
disappear. This is not the right location for apartments and 1 do believe that most
Apple Valley residents would agree with me.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathy Lundin
13531 Hollins Ct.
612-747-9826
Lovelace, Tom
From: Carole Elfstrum
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 3:08 PM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Cc: Douglas Elfstrum
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course Redevelopment
Mr. Lovelace,
We reside at 8580 136th Ct W and have our backyard adjacent to the Apple Valley Golf Course in an area that is
proposed to be changed to high density residential. We are writing to follow up to our earlier email on this subject.
We attended the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, June 19th and were thrilled to see the huge outpouring
from the community. When we arrived, there was a line going out the door and into the parking lot to get into the
Planning Commission meeting. Every seat in the Council Chamber was filled. Many of us stood against the wall for the
entire almost 2 hour meeting. Still others had to find places on the floor to sit. There was unanimous disapproval of the
proposal to change the land use designation as demonstrated by the many, many members of the community that
spoke as well as the rounds of applause supporting each of the speakers. Here are some of the many reasons given for
opposition to this proposal:
This proposal violates the Comprehensive Plan by placing high density usage adjacent to low density usage. The
entire golf course is surrounded by single family homes thus if there is any change made it should be to low
density usage to be consistent with the neighborhood.
Many speakers opposed any change in classification to the golf course as it would destroy one of the remaining
areas of green space in west Apple Valley. Speakers recommended that the city of Apple Valley purchase the
property and maintain a green space usage such as a park. One speaker commented that if the city could spend
$3 million on a new clubhouse for Valleywood, then there should be a way to fund the preservation of this green
space. Another speaker provided an application for state funding that is available for green space preservation.
Many concerns were expressed about how this change would negatively impact on the drainage issues between
the wetlands and Lake Alimagnet. There are already significant drainage issues and destroying this green space
would only make it worse.
Many concerns were expressed about the significant traffic and safety impact of adding high density usage to
this area. There are already traffic issues at 140th and Gardenview and adding high density housing would make
it much worse.
Given the challenges with this property including wetlands and pipeline requirements, many question whether
this could be developed for residential use at all.
At the start of the Public Hearing, Chair Melander stated that the commission makes their decisions based on the
appropriate land use as described in the Comprehensive plan, not based on any financial issues. The speakers at the
meeting demonstrated that this proposal is in violation of the comprehensive plan and the only reason to approve it is a
financial gain for the property owner. If the commission approves this request, then can we request a change to the
comprehensive plan to designate our almost 1 acre property to become high density, too? Where will this stop?
Given the universal opposition to this proposal from the entire community and the Comprehensive plan that states that
high density should not be placed next to single family homes, we hope that you will make the right decision and reject
this proposal.
Sincerely,
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Lisa Digatono
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 6:52 PM
To: Murphy, Joan; Lovelace, Tom; Murphy, Joan
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course
Hello Tom & Joan,
My name is Lisa and I attended the public meeting last Wednesday regarding the Comp Plan Rezoning request for the
Apple Valley Golf Course property. I did not speak at the meeting but understood you would continue to accept
comments and questions.
I moved into my home at 13815 Holyoke Path in September 2016. My property backs up to one of the feeder ponds
connected via a culvert system to Lake Alimagnet. Longtime homeowners around me talk about when this pond was
clear and clean. Over just these past 3 years I have observed the decline of water quality in this pond along with an
invasive foul odor that builds up over the summer months. There are also only 2 storm drain catch basins in one spot on
Holyoke Path that carry rain water from the corner of 138th Street W all the way to Rimrock Drive. Heavy rains overflow
these catch basins on a regular basis with water washing all the way up into our yards, sump pumps run constantly. Our
storm sewer system is already overburdened and water quality in Lake Alimagnet & our ponds is terrible, no doubt the
addition of any impervious surfaces in the neighborhood will have a negative impact.
As stated by several of the residents the request to update the Comp Plan allowing for Medium and High Density
housing on the golf course completely contradicts the Mission Statement of Apple Valley, it is inconsistent with the
surrounding low density neighborhood, is detrimental to the health & well-being of its residents, would further burden
the already crowded roadways and does not meet the MD & HD zoning requirements requiring convenient shopping
and amenities. I would like to know if your job as a City Planner requires you to put forth a land owner's request,
regardless of how you perceive it and the impact on the immediate neighborhood, or if city representatives worked with
the landowner to devise this plan?
Clearly the neighborhood would most benefit from this property keeping its Recreational status and being developed as
park space with amenities that could be used year round by all residents. Understanding this may not be 100% feasible I
would think city planners would lobby for a plan that is consistent with AV's commitment to it residents & the
surrounding LD neighborhood and put forth a plan that is a mixed use green park space and additional low density
housing to attract long term residents.
I would also like to better understand the next steps of this process. I reviewed the public meeting video again, and did
some research on line. I understand the City Council will rule on this proposal either July 17 or August 8. Will questions
posed be answered at this meeting? Will we be notified prior to the meeting so neighbors can attend? If the plan is
approved as is, do we have the ability to petition and what are the Apple Valley petition requirements? Once this moves
to the Metropolitan Council do we have the right to appeal at that level? And lastly, what is the intended timeline for
any changes to this property?
I made an investment in Apple Valley when I purchased my home with every intention of being a long term resident. I
have also invested in updates to my property but am rethinking my plans to continue. Please do the right thing here, the
golf course is surrounded on all sides by good, hard working residents who take pride in their homes and don't deserve
to have 285+ MD & HD units thrust in the middle of this neighborhood.
I'll keep an eye out for your reply, thank you.
Lisa Digatono
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Linda Harty
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 3:48 PM
To: Lovelace, Tom; Grawe, Charles
Cc: Grawe, Charles
Subject: AVGC Land Use Issue
Importance: High
To Mr. Lovelace, and all City Council members:
I was out of town last week and not able to attend the Public Hearing held 6/19 by the Planning Commission on the AV
Golf Course topic. Upon my return, I watched the webstream video of the meeting, the entire 90+ minutes dedicated to
AVGC was very informative & encouraging. Every single resident speaker, from all parts of Apple Valley, spoke against
the re -zoning. It was unanimous. Many points that I would have made if I could have been there were all brought up,
including:
- Rezoning would go against the Mission & Values of Apple Valley's Comprehensive plan, and also violate the
Comp Plan's statements about not mixing in High Density housing where only LD exists... all homes bordering
AVGC are single family residences. It is currently a very quiet, peaceful neighborhood with abundant birds and
other wildlife, of which I am fortunate to be a part of. My home's backyard is adjacent to the course.
- Green Spaces are very important, more so than ever in this day and age. Keeping natural wetlands in place, and
preserving/improving parks and woodlands and nature areas are all highly valued by citizens, and in the AV
Comp Plan. Rezoning for MD and HD housing on the current AVGC land directly contradicts those values and
would be a travesty.
- Traffic is already busy on both 140th and Gardenview Drive, and nearby McAndrews. Adding many more people
and vehicles in the small AVGC area is asking for trouble, and an increase in accidents. Gardenview and 140th
are also main roads used by AV High School students during the school year, and their safety should be of high
importance to all of us.
I could go on and go... many good points were made by all the residents who spoke at the meeting. One additional item
no one mentioned, is that the AVHS JV Girls Golf team, and others I believe, use the 9 -hole Apple Valley Golf Course
each spring to practice and also to hold South Suburban Conference JV matches. Continued community support of high
school sports such as golf (who have to find their own courses to play & practice) is important.
City Council members: please watch the video of the June 19th Planning Commission meeting if you have not already
done so. You will see & hear firsthand all the important, compelling, and valid reasons to NOT proceed with the AVGC
re -zoning request.
As mentioned by some speakers, my highest priority and vote would also be that the city buys the golf course and runs
it. Besides being a great short course for junior golfers, beginners/less experienced, families looking to have a fun
outing, and those better golfers who want to work on their short game, it is also a wonderful green space to preserve
and enjoy. Other cities that have successfully purchased and run successful 9 -hole courses over the years are Mendota
Heights (Par 30) and New Brighton (Brightwood Hills), to name two. They each have extensive adult and junior leagues,
junior golf camps, lessons are available, and they hold special events such as fun tournaments tied to city-wide
celebrations like our Freedom Days. I have contacts in the golf industry and would gladly volunteer to help staff &
organize some things at AVGC if it ideally becomes a city course. If not, then I agree with the unanimous crowd at the
6/19 meeting that at the very least it should remain green space — either natural, or be developed into an Apple Valley
City Park for all to enjoy.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this matter.
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Grawe, Charles
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 324 PM
To: Nordquist, Bruce; Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Golf Course
Original Message
From: Donais Family
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 1:47 PM
To: Grawe, Charles <CGrawe@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Golf Course
I highly encourage you to keep the Apple Valley golf course. It has been a lovely option for me
and my children to learn the sport as well as a great date night/day for my husband and I.
The green space is lovely to see and is a nice balance to the unsightly dense housing in the area
behind and around Home Depot.
Please fight for what is right.
Sincerely,
Kelli Donais
Sent from my iPhone
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:27 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: AV Golf Course
Original Message
From: Erica Eggers
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 9:22 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Cc: brian.j.eggers@gmail.com
Subject: AV Golf Course
Hello,
We could not make the hearing tonight about the golf course. But we would really like the
proposal to be reconsidered. We are not at all in favor of taking the golf course away, especially
for apartments and townhomes. We strongly disagree and feel it will change the entire feel of
our neighborhood and schools and community. This is not be beneficial for our community. We
are worried about property values, additional traffic, and overall safety for our family. We've
lived in this area almost 10 years and love the area and our schools and neighbors, but we will
strongly consider moving should this proposal move forward. Please advise as to the next
steps and who else we need to share this information with to make ourselves heard.
Thank you,
Erica Eggers
Sent from my iPhone
Lovelace. Tom
From: Grawe, Charles
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 8:30 AM
To: Nordquist, Bruce; Lovelace, Tom; Lawell, Tom
Subject: FW: Apple Valley Golf Course Rezoning
From: Elliott Ashwell
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 6:51 AM
To: Grawe, Charles <CGrawe@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course Rezoning
City Council members & Mayor,
My family has lived in Apple Valley for 7 years. I grew up in MN most my life and graduated from Burnsville.
My family and I bought 13599 Hollins Ct in 2016.
We bought on Hollins for the golf course. Everyday we have great wildlife viewing opportunities. Deer, Fox,
bald eagles, turkeys, ducks of many varieties, hawks and many others.
I've played this course for 26 years. This piece of land is truly a top 5 most beautiful parts of the whole entire
city. The wetlands, the trees some aging well into the 80 year range.
You all have control of keeping this space for the people as a walking preserve (like in Richfield) or a park of
some sort.
Mayor Hamann -Roland is a ripple effect award recipient and I encourage her and the council to make a ripple
effect happen here. No need to displace all the beauty and nature. No need to build more infrastructure and
create more of a carbon footprint. No need to build here.
The residents off Holyoke voiced their concerns for the risen flood threat with added development creating
runoff into their neighborhood. Very valid concern I couldn't see not being recognized. The natural space here
acts as a big drain absorbing the rain/ melting snow thus keeping the homes across 140th more dry than if it was
all parking lots and roads.
We do not need apartments or more housing. There is no increased demand as many buildings in heart of the
city are not rented. Plus that area no longer is attractive. It's too overbuilt and it just looks like the city is trying
too hard. On top of that, this neighborhood does not support high density with its current traffic patterns, no
access to convenience stores or bus routes, proximity to schools and adjacent properties do not match. It's
clearly not a fit.
Apple Valley is named Apple Valley because it resembled AV in California. Please don't let it turn into
BURNSVILLE 2.0
Keep it grecn.
Thank you,
i
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 3:03 PM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: AV Golf Course Discussion
From: Danielle Liebl
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 2:36 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Cc: Gregory Liebl
Subject: AV Golf Course Discussion
Hello,
We are extremely disheartened by the stance the city appears to be taking on the current golf course land
discussion. To hear that the city wants to move forward with the direction it is proposing in order to receive
additional dollars for having additional Section 8 housing is extremely disappointing. We strongly feel that this
would change the make-up of the community that immediately surrounds it. The schools that already struggle
with test scores/values and student safety would not be helped by this. The neighborhoods near this would
see negative impacts to their property values and increased concerns for safety. The influx of individuals that
the city would have with this would not outweigh the number of families that would consider leaving due to
this.
We feel that there would be so many other good uses for this land - put in a single home development with a
local contractor or sell large Tots for custom homes. While we would all love to see the golf course stay put,
we do understand the financial impact and why they are wanting to sell. We just feel that the direction the
city is taking has far more negative consequences than positive at the moment.
Thank you for your time,
Danielle Liebl
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Grawe, Charles
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 8:15 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom; Nordquist, Bruce
Subject: FW: AV golf course on 140 th
From: sigurd 45
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:41 PM
To: Grawe, Charles <CGrawe@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: AV golf course on 140 th
You • Promote quality development;
• Provide a balance of residential, commercial, and public uses; and this area is one of the
few green space that is left in AV- please no more concrete jungle or apartments in our area .
We want to promote good climate environment for the next generation, so to save Our planet
for them. AV should buy it for the next generation and save the green space and the planet.
We all believe in climate change do we not ?
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Virus -free. www.avg.com
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: AV Golf Course planning concerns
From: Cassie Nordquist
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 1:21 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: AV Golf Course planning concerns
Good afternoon,
I am currently a resident of the Wallace Neighborhood in Apple Valley and have been for the past 9 years. I've been
following the proposed ideas and conversations surrounding the current Apple Valley Golf Course. I have had conflicts
with my children's activity schedules and have not been able to attend one of the hearings on the proposed for the
future land development. However, I feel it is important to voice my strong concerns regarding what is being proposed
for "High density" or possibly better called "low income" or Section 8 Housing developments. Although I understand
there is a significant amount of money involved in the decision making of what happens to this land. I feel the city needs
to strongly consider what that will do to the surrounding neighborhoods, schools and businesses, should they approve
this type of development. This area currently is already an area that has low income, rental property around it. By
adding more of this type of housing, it will only further create a pocket within our city that could potentially breed many
types of issues not only within the neighborhoods around there, but in our schools and businesses. This will have a
dramatic impact on the safety and overall "feel" for that area and not to mention the impact it will have on the value of
the single family homes in that area.
I understand the need to repurpose this land but feel there is a better way of doing so that won't negatively impact our
city and the surrounding schools and neighborhoods near the proposed land development. The land could easily be
used to better that neighborhood by sectioning it off for single family home development. A large home developer such
as a Lennar or Pulte, I'm sure would have interest in purchasing land for single family home development.
It just seems the current proposal is not one that benefits our community and is only be looked at from a monetary
value of how to make the most money out of the land. There needs to be more wholistic approach to looking at all that
surrounds that land and how the decision you make impacts not just the current land owner and the city's pocket book
but also the residents, schools and businesses around the land. Should this land development proposal go through
within the current state it is being proposed, I can assure you MANY in that area will be selling homes they've lived in for
years and that had hoped to raise their families in for years to come. And many of those will leave the Apple Valley tax
payer area.
I really hope you reconsider this current proposal and work to find a better way to use the land.
Sincerely,
CASSIE NORDQUIST
d: 763.307.6132 I c: 612.718.2762
3
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Land use
From: Tara Odegard
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Land use
Dear Tom,
I just wanted to send a note because I am unable to attend the public hearing this evening. I am NOT in favor of
the proposed use of the land from the Apple Valley Golf Course. Increasing the population in this area with
medium and high density residences would negatively impact it's current residents in school population, traffic,
and home values.
The golf course is beautiful and I enjoy the green space every time I drive through there. Please consider
keeping the green space with a park or, at most, with single family homes. Many homeowners would love the
chance to build so far north in the South metro.
Thank you for your consideration and caring about what the residents in this area care about!
June 27, 2019
City Council
The City of Apple Valley, Minnesota
7100 147th Street West
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Honorable Mayor, Mary Hammon -Rolan
Councilmember, John Bergman
Councilmember, Tom Goodwin
Councilmember, Ruth Gruendahl
Councilmember, Clint Hooppaw
RECE/yED
JU4.'
We the residents of Cobblestone Homeowners Association are very concerned with the proposal before
the City Council to rezone the property currently as the Apple Valley Golf Course located at 140th Street
and GardenView Drive.
As you probably are aware, there was an outpouring of concerns expressed by residents from the area
surrounding the golf course, at the City Planning Commission meeting held on June 19, 2019.
We echo the concerns expressed that evening and want to call to your attention other areas of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan not listed on the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for that evening.
This letter will not repeat the verbiage in the Comprehensive Guide Plan but will reference sections that
we encourage the City Council to review prior to voting on and re zoning this land parcel.
Apple Valley Comprehensive Guide Plan 2030
Section 1-1 bullet point 2
Section 4-1
Section 4-2
Section 4-3
Section 4-4
Section 4-6
Section 4-7
Section 4-8
In summary, our Association strongly believes that the City Council needs to abide by and be guided by
the statements that are included in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, not ignore them. We also believe
that the rezoning to include R-8 High Density Residential is in direct conflict with the CGP and is NOT
compatible in the small geographic area and the surrounding Low Density Residential neighborhood (s)
Storm water drainage, increased vehicular traffic which will overburden the existing road structure
system (GardenView & 140`h Street East and Westbound), are strong concerns
We strongly urge the Council to abide by the CGP when making this decision as these changes WILL have
a negative impact on our neighborhood, property values, "Greenspce", traffic, home access and the
quality of life in this area of the City of Apple Valley.
Respectfully submitted.
Cobblestone Manor Townhome Association, Board of Directors.
For the Board of Directors:
Daniel J. Henchal
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:28 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Land Use - Apple Valley Golf Course
Original Message
From: Sue
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 9:55 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Land Use - Apple Valley Golf Course
Hello - I was unable to make the meeting this evening, but as a resident of Apple Valley who
lives one mile from the land in question I want to voice my strong opposition to the proposed
land use. I specifically object to the high density housing aspect.
I am concerned about increased traffic, and the fact that this proposal would dramatically
change the nature of the area in a negative way.
There is plenty of high-density housing in Apple Valley, located near sufficient supporting
infrastructure. This area of Apple Valley should not be asked to absorb high-density housing it
will change the quiet dynamic nature of the area.
My first preference is that the City buy the land. Part of it could support a solar panel farm to
produce revenue generating energy that could be sold to Dakota Electric. Part of it could be
walking paths/a park. I would support a levy to pay for it. Green space is an important asset to a
community and this should be preserved at all costs.
Alternatively, a percentage of the land could be purchased by the city for a local park, with the
remainder sold for housing (again, not high density).
Alternatively, I would like to see the option for the surrounding neighborhood homeowners
have the option to purchase the land as a group.
It would obviously have to be a large number of households but it could be something to
explore.
Regardless, I want to clearly state that I am adamantly opposed to high density housing going
up in this part of Apple Valley. If people wanted to live near high density housing they would
have moved to such an area.
Approving this would be a betrayal to those who have purchased homes in the area based upon
the quiet neighborhood it is.
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Land use
From: Tara Odegard
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Land use
Dear Tom,
I just wanted to send a note because I am unable to attend the public hearing this evening. I am NOT in favor of
the proposed use of the land from the Apple Valley Golf Course. Increasing the population in this area with
medium and high density residences would negatively impact it's current residents in school population, traffic,
and home values.
The golf course is beautiful and I enjoy the green space every time I drive through there. Please consider
keeping the green space with a park or, at most, with single family homes. Many homeowners would love the
chance to build so far north in the South metro.
Thank you for your consideration and caring about what the residents in this area care about!
i
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:28 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Apple Valley Golf Course Property Rezoning
From: Becky Sandahl
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 7:13 AM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course Property Rezoning
Dear Members of the Community Development and Planning Department,
I was able to attend the public hearing last night for the proposed zoning change for the Apple Valley
Golf Course. I chose not to speak as most of what I wanted to say was already stated, but wanted to
add my voice to what was said last night.
We moved to Apple Valley from Chicago a few years ago and had the same feeling another member
of the community mentioned of being able to breathe. We didn't even realize how we couldn't take a
deep breath when living in Chicago due to the pollution and lack of green space until we would leave
the city. One of the things I love the most about living in Apple Valley is seeing trees and green space
almost everywhere I drive. Putting MD or HD lots into the golf course space would significantly take
away from that feeling of space and green. I of course would love to see it turned into a park to retain
as much of the green space as possible but at least LD housing would be consistent with the area.
One of the things the representative for the golf course owner said is that young families want to
move into Apple Valley but can't afford it, thus the need for MD and HD housing. I would argue that
young families will no longer want to live in Apple Valley if more and more MD and HD housing exists.
Speaking strictly from my limited personal experience and no research, I have found that a majority of
young families are moving further south into Lakeville and Farmington in part because there is more
open green space. If we want to attract young families to Apple Valley, we need to keep the feel of
Apple Valley, particularly as it is on this west side with more trees and green spaces.
The other question and possible point I would like to make about the additional traffic and people on
Garden View in particular is that Westview Elementary is just down the road. I have two kids that just
started Kindergarten there this year and a third that will start in two years. I love the fact that this
school is not on a crazy -busy road. Kids walk to and from school everyday or walk out for field trips to
the local Alimagnet Park, and adding this much traffic would make it that much less safe for our kids.
In addition, there are lines of cars waiting to drop off/pick-up kids for school and after school activities
every school day. I hope this is part of the traffic analysis - to gauge the impact on the school and the
safety of our kids adding (unless I heard it wrong) double the cars on this street every day, especially
as this is a road connecting the golf course area to the main shopping centers in Apple Valley.
Thank you for all the work you do for our city, and thank you for taking into consideration the
concerns the community has voiced over this proposed change.
Lovelace, Tom
From: Grawe, Charles
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 8:15 AM
To: Nordquist, Bruce; Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Golf course
Original Message
From: katherine velebir
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:39 PM
To: Grawe, Charles <CGrawe@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Golf course
Greetings!
I was unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday regarding the housing proposal for the public
golf course, but I still would like to voice my opposition for it. This is a beautiful green area and
housing in its place would ruin it. Not to mention it would be a complete eyesore with regards
to the surrounding area. It would look totally out of place. Hopefully, the redevelopment of that
gorgeous area would include a park or something along those lines to keep it a green space. We
already have enough apartments and multi family housing in the area. Thank you for your
continued leadership in this great city. I love living here, which is why I'm so passionate about
this proposal.
Sincerely,
Katie Schlosser
Sent from my iPhone
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Concern
From: Wallace, Tamara <
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:35 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Concern
Good afternoon,
Unfortunately, I am unable to make the Planning Commission meeting tonight, but I wanted to have the opportunity to
express my specific concern with the proposed plans for the Apple Valley Golf Course at the corner of County Road 42
and Garden View Drive. I live at 14113 Garden View Court in Apple Valley, and on a given day it is extremely
challenging to even tum out of our cul-de-sac as the traffic on Garden View Drive is so steady. This is almost doubled in
complexity when there is snow on the ground, as the dip in our neighborhood requires us to trek up a hill to get to Garden
View Drive, and if a car is coming you essentially lose all momentum to get out of the complex as the entrance is never
fully plowed. There are already a ton of twin homes along Garden View Drive which all seem to be rental homes with a
lot of in/ out traffic, changing occupants, and at times louder music. My concem is that the development of an apartment
complex in an area that already has townhomes across the street, lots of single family homes, and intersects two busy
streets, will mean a huge influx in traffic as well as noise; in addition to the demographic suffering depending on what
type of apartment housing is going into this space.
I would have loved to maintain the existing golf course as I think it adds a pertinent amenity to the community; but given
it seems like that process has already been decided, I would ask the Planning Commission to at least be cognizant of the
neighboring homes, which are all extremely nice with well-developed value. The development of high-end townhomes
would make sense and be appropriatc for the area; but putting an apartment building at all - especially one that is
affordable housing for example - could drastically lower home values, create an unfortunate eye sore for those who had a
view of once quiet, open grass, and change the entire neighborhood feel. Yes plans/ zoning are always susceptible to
change, but I would ask that the Planning Commission consider that some of us are literally just hearing about this with a
sign posted at the corner — and though we may not be right across from the arca directly, we will be just as impactcd if the
demographic, noise, and traffic flow increases to this area.
This could be an opportunity to at least add some amenities that did not exist like the extension of a trail system, as well as
adding a neighborhood park.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tamara & Blake Wallace
14113 Garden View Court
Apple Valley, MN 55124
1
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 826 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Land Use - Apple Valley Golf Course
Original Message
From: Tyler Williams -
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 7:35 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Land Use - Apple Valley Golf Course
I'm sorry I can't make the public hearing tonight, but if you'll take comments by email:
I don't feel confident enough to say whether the space is best used as a golf course or
residential, but if it is to be turned into residential, I would very much support this plan or even
more high density acreage than is currently planned.
I think Apple Valley sorely needs more affordable housing (for working and middle class
families alike) and would much rather see reasonably -priced homes go in there than more
$400k+ places like we seem to have everywhere else in town that's building new.
Thank you for your time.
Hopeful future Apple Valley homeowner,
Tyler Williams
Apple Valley, MN
Lovelace, Tom
From: Murphy, Joan
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 8:16 AM
To: Lovelace, Tom
Subject: FW: Apple Valley Golf Course Rezoning
From: Nathan Yates
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:59 PM
To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course Rezoning
Hello,
I am Nathan Yates and live at 13565 J-lenna Ave. I attended the Planning Commission meeting on 6/19/19 and
listened to all of the people that received applause for opposing the rezoning proposal. I have a different
opinion on this. I am not for or against the rezoning to allow for medium and/or high density housing. I am
aware of the affordable housing issues in the metro area and the need for solutions. I also understand that
this rezoning application is tied to the Comprehensive Plan for 2040 and that the decision will impact the
future of the city.
I am appreciative of the people that took the time to identify and offer alternatives or provided legitimate
objections based on a State Supreme Court ruling, existing laws, or regulations. I believe that you, the City
Council, and the lawyers involved are smart people that can make this decision based on all relevant
information and restrictions. I also heard that the the property itself provides difficulties: the gas pipeline,
wetlands, and required setbacks or easements.
I think it would be a good idea for the city to purchase the land. However, I would suggest that the city turn it
into a park that all residents could enjoy since many golf courses are not doing well, and use chemical
fertilizers that negatively impact the neighboring wetlands.
I suggest that you discard the emotional pleas and nostalgia over a city that is no longer present. It is best to
make this decision based on logic, reason, and legal or regulatory considerations. I believe it is rare for good
decisions to be made out of emotional self interest. If it is decided to approve the rezoning then I will not
have any disagreement and look forward to meeting future neighbors.
Respectfully,
Nathan Yates
Grawe, Charles
From: Elliott Ashwel!
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 6:51 AM
To: Grawe, Charles
Subject: Apple Valley Golf Course Rezoning
City Council members & Mayor,
My family has lived in Apple Valley for 7 years. I grew up in MN most my life and graduated from Burnsville.
My family and I bought 13599 Hollins Ct in 2016.
We bought on Hollins for the golf course. Everyday we have great wildlife viewing opportunities. Deer, Fox,
bald eagles, turkeys, ducks of many varieties, hawks and many others.
I've played this course for 26 years. This piece of land is truly a top 5 most beautiful parts of the whole entire
city. The wetlands, the trees some aging well into the 80 year range.
You all have control of keeping this space for the people as a walking preserve (like in Richfield) or a park of
some sort.
Mayor Hamann -Roland is a ripple effect award recipient and I encourage her and the council to make a ripple
effect happen here. No need to displace all the beauty and nature. No need to build more infrastructure and
create more of a carbon footprint. No need to build here.
The residents off Holyoke voiced their concerns for the risen flood threat with added development creating
runoff into their neighborhood. Very valid concern I couldn't see not being recognized. The natural space here
acts as a big drain absorbing the rain/ melting snow thus keeping the homes across 140th more dry than if it was
all parking lots and roads.
We do not need apartments or more housing. There is no increased demand as many buildings in heart of the
city are not rented. Plus that area no longer is attractive. It's too overbuilt and it just looks like the city is trying
too hard. On top of that, this neighborhood does not support high density with its current traffic patterns, no
access to convenience stores or bus routes, proximity to schools and adjacent properties do not snatch. It's
clearly not a fit.
Apple Valley is named Apple Valley because it resembled AV in California. Please don't let it turn into
BURNSVILLE 2.0
Keep it green.
Thank you,
Elliott Ashwell
Rack Shack BBQ
Mobile 952-250-4096
Sent from iPhone sorry tor any typos
1
Grawe, Charles
From: Frank Robertson
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:19 AM
To: Grawe, Charles
Subject: Proposed Land Use Changes - Apple Valley Golf Course
Dear Mayor Hamann -Roland:
1 am writing in regard to the proposed land use changes for the Apple Valley Golf Course, as discussed at the
June 19 Planning Commission Meeting which I attended. I am a 28 -year resident of Apple Valley (8132 137th
Court) and I listened with great interest to the comments of the City Planner, the attorney for the property
owner, the Planning Commission chair, and concerned citizens. I am familiar with the property in question as it
is within walking distance of our home and I am an occasional golfer at the site. 1 am also a strong believer in
private property rights and do not question the owner's desire to liquidate an asset that is no longer feasible for
him to maintain. However, after digesting the comments made at the public hearing and studying this issue in
some depth, I wish to offer an alternative to re -zoning the property for residential development.
As pointed out by several speakers at the June 19 public hearing, once natural area or "green space" is replaced
by residential or commercial development it is gone forever. While both private and public municipal golf
courses are struggling nationwide, it has been proven that there is an alternative to developing these properties
for residential or commercial use. That alternative is the conversion of these golf courses to public park
space. Through public/private partnerships, the owner can be compensated fairly for the property and the public
retains the "green space" which is so vital to our communities.
As discussions of the proposed land use change progress, to be followed by any re -zoning decisions and review
of development plans, I strongly urge you and the City Council to seriously consider the purchase of these 23
acres from Mr. Watrud and the conversion of the former golf course to a multi-purpose public park. In addition
to maintaining the asthetics of the western side of Apple Valley, this proposal could add natural areas for plant
and animal conservation, as well as decorative public gardens (as are common in European cities) with walking
paths, designated dog walk areas, and possibly additional public athletic fields and courts, should a need exist.
The purchase of this land, could be accomplished in partnership with non-profit organizations such as the Trust
for Public Land, supplemented by private fundraising and a possible tax levy, which I feel would be supported
by many citizens. I have attached two web links where such partnerships have produced excellent results for
the communities involved across the nation, and I encourage you and the City Council to explore this option as
a viable alternative to residential development of this property.
https://www.tpl.org/blt)T2.'whcn-pri\-,1 C-1.!olf-anuses-1,in l ro€wh c43nhlnunitic €it ptiblic p€rrits
https://www.parkology.orejPark Know led ueBaseA vt is i c l )etc� a 19460000()1 OrW HAAO
Please provide copies of this email to Tom Lovelace, Tom Melander, and any other City officials whom you
think appropriate.
With kind regards,
Frank Robertson
r
LTC Frank Robertson, USA (Ret.)
8132 137th Court
Apple Valley, MN 55124
The Hon. Mary Hamann -Roland
Mayor, City of Apple Valley
7100 147th Street
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Dear Mayor Hamann -Roland.
I am writing in regard to the proposed land use changes for the Apple Valley Golf
Course, as discussed at the June 19 Planning Commission Meeting which I attended. I
am a 28 -year resident of Apple Valley (8132 137th Court) and I listened with great
interest to the comments of the City Planner, the attorney for the property owner, the
Planning Commission chair, and concerned citizens. I am familiar with the property in
question as it is within walking distance of our home and I am an occasional golfer at
the site. I am also a strong believer in private property rights and do not question the
owner's desire to liquidate an asset that is no longer feasible for him to
maintain. However, after digesting the comments made at the public hearing and
studying this issue in some depth, I wish to offer an alternative to re -zoning the property
for residential development.
As pointed out by several speakers at the June 19 public hearing, once natural area or
"green space" is replaced by residential or commercial development it is gone
forever. While both private and public municipal golf courses are struggling nationwide,
it has been proven that there is an alternative to developing these properties for
residential or commercial use. That alternative is the conversion of these golf courses
to public park space. Through public/private partnerships, the owner can be
compensated fairly for the property and the public retains the "green space" which is so
vital to our communities.
As discussions of the proposed land use change progress, to be followed by any re-
zoning decisions and review of development plans, I strongly urge you and the City
Council to seriously consider the purchase of these 23 acres from Mr. Watrud and the
conversion of the former golf course to a multi-purpose public park. In addition to
maintaining the aesthetics of the western side of Apple Valley, this proposal could add
natural areas for plant and animal conservation, as well as decorative public gardens
(as are common in European cities) with walking paths, designated dog walk areas, and
possibly additional public athletic fields and courts, should a need exist.
The purchase of this land, could be accomplished in partnership with non-profit
organizations such as the Trust for Public Land, supplemented by private fundraising
and a possible tax levy, which I feel would be supported by many citizens. I have
enclosed two articles illustrating that such partnerships have produced excellent results
for the communities involved across the nation, and I encourage you and the City
Council to explore this option as a viable alternative to residential development of this
property.
With kind regards,
Frank Robertson
2 Encls
cc: Tom Melander, Chair, Apple Valley Planning Commission
Tom Lovelace, City Planner, City of Apple Valley —
FGetvE
NOG (1 4
,
By The Trust for Public Land
Thu Jan 04 15:21.18 GMT 2018
'71 "
\1
-H.. •L.c1H:u;sec,1 •,-..)f grill' in ihe rnenUorreti
trr I1e 1i ntirittpei" of prm.Ato ,'ocirses lias shrunk. ,...sper74,.il1y in ti wae of OleGi eot
RrnSin
VVliile C31 ticle tocusesi on the pou„,..iltial ;,:onvers[ori re2;ikienti11 teiuses. it (11(11 mention
orivitto courses 'tiro public: ntiinix2r of rXes ;r$fffl aLI-0.Yi the
1.:01H±try I ri Laird is ;-rir a.tve r)nr.h.:rry.--Int in Ca t111.aj frOtri Prate !.jrrlt
yfith ritrer2. Arlo, g::Inng golf fn.! public hit tI)I variety of
onntental LfId r(--icrealli)riat uses DI ar;v1UiSil.i(.)fl IS 111 Wrilf111 CI, [Alt we've Elk()
a:qlrired oft coure,•:. rncentiy in (Viarir r;JL[ y Poi IIHnO Oregon, Rancho C,',"anad@, Califonlia
arid Lioicieri, Colorclrio. More abiA (his
Executive Summary:
The trtr r „ :/1'1:!11 r1-1:,?, US for the past decade or
<•.(;) -1,•j ',,V10 (..",r]ti'.. pt liblistied Ir 2.015 by The R & A (Global Governing body for
2flor,:r:
r 111 rtr U2 is 15,372, clown ii.,)F11 a high of 16,052 courses around the year
Data collected by The Trust for Public Land for the annual City Park Facts report shows the current
number of public golf courses in the 100 largest U.S_ cities is 413, up from 400 in 2010. Thus, the number
of public golf courses is 2.69 percent of the current overall total.;,%`;
While we have not seen many examples of public golf courses being converted to parks, we do find 19
public or private golf courses being purchased and converted to public parks in the past 12 years. The
Trust for Public Land has been an integral part of the latter effort, working on 9 of the 19 in the past 12
years_
Usagein golf:&purses, according to the National Golf Foundation is declining. In 2000, there were 28.8 M
golfers, growing to 29.42 M in 2009, then falling by end of 2016 to 23.8 M golfers,[31 The number of
rounds went from 518.4 M rounds in 2000 to 465.5 M rounds in 2013.[4]
Examples of:Goff Course to Park conversions in the past 10-12 years. We've found a total of 15 in
the past 12 years that have been acquired, now in process to convert them into parks or nature preserves
or fully converted Many more have been considered, especially in Florida, Texas, Arizona and California,
A current trend is also considering them for conversion to housing subdivisions or commercial or industrial
development. Recent examples include: Tampa [See: tido-com:ne>vsliocalgovernmelriPasco-
commission-alcays- ria-ii-hoi!o'':'- oli-co_rrse-c:rover ion;233LO 7 ] among many others.
Current f recent golf course conversions to public parks:
• 2018: Windsor, CT purchased the 95 -acre Millbrook & Traditions Golf Course, previously targeted
for residential development prior to the Great Recession of 2008, as a park, working with the Trust
for Public Land. The purchase is a key building block in the Town's greenway plan, adopted in
2015. tel ';':,v. .-.c -r l,, ::It`aoki
• 2018: Stockton, CA, after six months of public debate, has decided to keep both of its golf courses
as public space, previously they were consider the closure of Swenson, but keeping Van Buskirk
Golf Course and possibly converting it to a public park. 1
[See: hitp:!/v;'ww_recpldrlet- o:n/, sit , ,D1 c es f nl Ir l-SLe 1
1 ��''ell U ;�_'t�, 3Vde(iSGfl-DI �'Li'v- =�yS-lot_, t-51., Li Inn -Q �i r -i .j_
▪ 2018: Marin County, CA — The Trust for Public Land purchased San Geronimo golf course in late
2017. Marin County Parks, which now owns the course, is re -opening it for a two-year interim
period while planning begins for eventual conversion to a park. ;lttps'U'. v'.' .^' pl ori gilneaia-
roor'n/tmst-p',fbiic-land-w it-uuy-son-geronir no-golf-course-
Inr:: ` p:/(v,rr.1� '1rnj ;3; opinio '.10.130 1 21/+ e-retu /'i1f e -gcronrmc-goi -an -pi7_;fl3-iUr-
rn:. and i�r;-� ; . ;;,i rn_. ,,i ��.._:��: II' ._.. � ,.. .. ��-, .
• 2018: Plano converting The Club at Los Rio golf course to a public park by
2019: ` tt!:s icorrrr.unitt'vlir ct corn/dal las-Fort V11crtlil'•.7i? :ciparir,.s-recreailoi l201i1/03; 1 ),rcI03_:,.,.
._.-goit-C.i��_.r e -convert d- . iy-�iiana-Cies' �' -space-2310! .
• 2018: Chicago. Highland Park Golf Course to be sold to Chicago Park District or another
developer: e:lillv'e,vo"Ic- o?ri I ;;G!: rl 1, h:, :,�1 _ cif - !-
J IiIC �It:l ;I1? '1IS11C,-}7Z:. '=v=:-il(_);.���'.Iilu�.: I1_t a;'":';l�l
• 2018: Detroit: Blighted Ex-Rogell Golf Course could turn into
park: 'k'/ !f\:,y_..'-iec':ellee:.v_.��ir
cc;llr3e
• 2017: Wake County, North Carolina's board of commissioners voted in November to spend $23.4 M
to convert the Crooked Creek Golf Course to a public county park.
[See, lri;j1;VC :GI":li-!C'4-fc_.iVesl�)�"`? j JcC'-:J;'['.snilet-c:„n,.fi_r r -_=L.
IY-
]
fl 2017: San Diego / Mission Valley
proposed conversion of private golf course to mixed use
development, including 80 acre park / trails along the San Diego River
[See: hap://v/v_,,, nt r:,i1sd-fi-ovef$/a!k-
201702 t1 -son, hi!
• 2017: Highland Park, Illinois — Planning to convert Highland Park Country Club to a public park in
three phases. [See ;^ i
22 i-201712-:3--s,:on,, j (public course, agreement between city and local parks
district finalized.)
• 2017: Trotwood, Ohio — Larch Golf Course conversion to park by Dayton
MetroParks: ‘vh coi-rfroP-2„tiocatiforr-4.-_-:r-trov/oo(1-c•;cg-coui - se-cc,r, ver cad-
pai-kiniaZD8rOmOiA0tc,6MMoi:),....' (planning underway, purchased earlier in 2017 for $1 M)
• 2017: littntsvifie, AL: Municipal Golf Course to be converted into multi -use
park: httri
• 2016: Cedar Rapids, IA — Jones Golf Course conversion to park (public to public)
httploo,mr,..,v ! ;F37.phc
• 2016 Portland, OR — Coiwood:
20 F.6 11:..inc,:ho Canada (..T.aliforirip • tpi oTglour-warkirancho-c..=,:n;:icia
201 (':oloiado Appiewond: targfaur-\,vorkPappiewoo0-cjoir-course
O 2016 1.2 VisLi Fail:s. NE — CJVJL Centel Park: hilp://k,,,,,ww.omaha.corn/sportsilocal-golftla-vista-falls-
•,,• •
▪ 20 frotwooti, -- Larch Tree ---. • or20 15]01!
• 2014: Saginaw, MI — Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
— nttp ifwviv,/ fp live cominewsisagmawiindex ssti20-14/05/nattire_consrvancy_hiavvassee,html
2011: Santa Barbara, CA: Ocean Meadows — https://,,vww tpl.orgiow-workiLlpper-devereuslough-
Oceao-mclows
2011: Wilmington, NC — Inland Greens — Conversion of the front 9 of 18 -hole golf into a passive
park, with work continuing through 2016. i ag torn o. govjd epartmen tsipkirks-
ese, reatioiligatketInis-pocils
• 2010: Hillsboro, OR — Orenco Woods:
• 2011: Belgium, WI — Forest Beach Migratory Preserve: inips::lawit.orgbnsoi_r-praservesiforest-,
be.-.1ch-reigratct y-prese rye
• 2010: EngleWoocl, FL- Wildflower Preserve: nttplileinonbalco.lsarvc• orliwiicitioyip.r.preserve/
2007: Ocean,. NI tt,,,t;'k i• j
2006,2013: Royal Palm Beach, FL — Royal Palm Beach Commons Park
• .:.,",....n.,,,,gourv,,,,,;:.ertpoilute0•••goif-coutse-ro-ret:!;::w,,,:!•iltziar.:inil,. :3
• 2005: New Orleans, LA. Cny — ip orgiblogiten-yeats-aflai-katrina--i.ivAlf
Historic conversions of golf courses to public parks:
• Piedmont Park, Atlanta GA. haps livykAn.ii or hti.os://‘,,vvvw
Examples of restoration techniques and processes used to convert golf courses to parks:
• Few examples or literat ire e:0: he found.
irses (pure natural /
native. ases:R(Jbi
References:
O The R & Lip Enda )
* The National Golf Foundation: http4secure.nco' org
O The Trust for Public Land: htlp://wwW ti J rgi
Footnotes:
I -I; — Information from the R & A and The National Golf Foundation — websites
[2] — City Parks Facts 2017, The Trust for Public Land —
[3] —"Annual participation report uncovers favorable trends for the game's future' April 22, 2017 in
Golfdigest.com
[4] — Information from The National Golf Foundation — http://secure.ngf_org/cgiifaga.asp?
[5] — information from Statista — https:Nwww.statista.comistatisticsi22 7420fnumber-of golfers-usaf
• $154 Billion: The Annual Economic Impact of Local Parks
• Park Pulse: Providing All Abilities Play Spaces
• NRPA Park and Recreation Inclusion Report
Making The Case Data
• Add Comment
PARKOLOGY IS A PROJECT OF:
0
How we work Bloc; Media room Magazine Support us
NIE OUR WORK
ItLOMiNWAuc
ABOUT
AUG Q 'C
Home / Blogs / When private golf courses land in the rough, communities tee up public parks
. ,, u. �.. �. 1111..�„.. ��w, ,1111 u.. ..111111.1 ,1111, .. w,
estimates, 800 have closed down in just the past decade. When they do, they leave
a hundred -acre question behind: what should happen to all that land?
In some communities, locals opt to keep once -private courses in play under the
management of a public parks department. In others, where parks—or water—are in
short supply, golf courses are reverting to wilder green space, where close -cropped
fairways grow into grassy meadows and cart paths become trail networks.
Since 2008, we've helped conserve nine golf courses. Some still welcome golfers as public courses, and
some have become multi -use parks, helping close the green space gap in cities.
Photo credit: Leah Nash
The Trust for Public Land helps communities make the most of their open space—
and golf courses are no exception. Here are five places where neighbors are shaping
the future of the fairway.
Ra ncho Canada – Carmel Valley, California
. •••.... ......... . , ..Ili, .,11 1 ..,.11 1 ...... ..., 1 IV, 5,11111%, 1.. I 1.d.1.1 1 .. ,
edge of the world-famous Big Sur Coast. But until just this month, only a dozen
groups per day could get permits to explore it—because there was no safe place to
park. What changed? On April 10, The Trust for Public Land transferred a former golf
course adjacent to the park to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. Now
the old clubhouse can become a hub for community gatherings, the water that once
irrigated the links will remain in the Carmel River, and the existing parking lot and
cart paths will provide access for anyone who wants to venture further into Palo
Corona.
This month, we protected the former Rancho Canada Course in c -r r?,. ,. ,i,vnia as a new public
park. The project conserves water in the Carmel Rivet and creates r: ,.; iecl new access to Palo
r
Corona's forested mountain trails.
Photo credit: Carmel Realty Company
Applewood Golf Course – Golden, Colorado
golfers in metro Denver. When developers proposed a 400 -unit subdivision on the
property, locals rallied to save it as open space instead—even approving a $9.4
million bond measure to help conserve the land for the public. Today, the Prospect
Recreation & Park District operates Applewood as an 18 -hole course open to all, but
even non -golfers have a reason to celebrate: plans are in the works for new trail
connections through the course.
Colwood Park — Portland, Oregon
No other part of Portland is as short on parks as the Cully neighborhood. So when
the owner of a golf course there first proposed selling the property for industrial
development, neighbors worried they were missing an opportunity to create much-
needed green space. We helped park advocates navigate a tricky re -zoning effort
that laid the groundwork for opening a nine -hole public course—while dedicating
other parts of the property for playgrounds, sports fields, and a restored wetland.
Today the Colwood Golf Center is home turf for The First Tee, a nonprofit working
to introduce the game to the park's neighbors.
Emerson Golf Club — Bergen County, New Jersey
According to the National Golf Foundation, Bergen County is smack in the middle of
the most golf -crazy region in America. Just about nobody wanted to see the
Emerson Golf Club close for good, and the Bergen County Parks Department—
which operates five other public courses—knows a thing or two about the game. So
when Emerson's owners decided to sell, we worked with the county to acquire the
land for the public. As the deal came to a close last year, one county administrator
summed it up: "I think this is a win-win for Bergen County."
North Campus Open Space — Goleta, California
In the mid-1960s, developers dumped a million cubic yards of fill dirt on top of a
thriving coastal wetland in central California to create the nine -hole Ocean Meadows
•+. •.•.+w-+ •s••v•• .w .r ., ,rrv•..� ur�vur. yr �•tr 4[1IW[•J 41W4t1[1 14!14
in healthy habitat and climate resilience—and Californians are keen to connect to the
coast. So in 2013, we helped purchase the flagging Ocean Meadows Golf Course
and transfer the land to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which is leading a
community effort to restore the buried wetland. Now called the North Campus Open
Space, it forms a key link in a 600 -acre stretch of connected coastal trails and open
space.
The university, neighbors, and local school kids are working together to restore a thriving coastal
wetland at the North Campus Open Space.
Photo credit: UC Santa Barbara's Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration
Is there a golf course near you that needs a creative plan for its future? Head over to
i".;) C, ati,5
and let us know how you think the land should be used.
COASTAL LANDS HABITAT LAND PROTECTION TRAILS WATER WETLANDS CALIFORNIA COLORADO
NEW JERSEY OREGON
s
EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION
1/41S
trOPSVJMEi
���T= al Man
A.V. GOLF COURSE
PROPOSED COMP
PLAN DESIGNATION
"LD" (Low Density Res.)
"MD" (Med. Density Res.)
"HD" (High Density Res.)
Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory
dt/IN 3NIl3dId 3911103 3149 A311VA 3lddd
...
....
.....
Apple
ppl ell
Valley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
6.A.
August 7, 2019
Other Business
Description:
Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates
Staff Contact:
Joan Murphy, Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED:
N/A
SUMMARY:
Next Planning Commission Meetings:
Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
• Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 24, 2019
• Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 7, 2019
Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
• Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 7, 2019
• Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Next City Council Meetings:
Thursday, August 8, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A