Loading...
04-13-15 PC Agenda1. 2. 0 4 AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, April 13, 2015 7 pm Approval of Minutes March 23, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Liberty Crossing — Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue North — PU-123 Applicant: Intuitive Investments Addresses: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North Purpose: To allow a 184 unit apartment building and 63 townhome units. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — Liberty Crossing — Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue North — ZO14-07 Applicant: Intuitive Investments Addresses: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North Purpose: To rezone the properties from Commercial and Light Industrial to High Density Residential (R-4) Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment — 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road — CPAM-56 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to Residential High Density. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 6. Other Business Revisions to Planning Commission By-laws Council Liaison Report 7. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72 -hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 23, 2015. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Baker and Johnson were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 9, 2015, Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 9, 2015, and the March 9, 2015, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan CenterPoint Energy — 6161 Golden Valley Road — PU-122 Applicant: CenterPoint Energy Address: 6161 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow a new approximately 64,000 square foot operations facility, replacement of an approximately 825 square foot gas regulator building, and related site improvements. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request for a PUD to add an additional principal structure. The proposed new structure is a 64,000 square foot operations facility which `'includes office, warehouse, and small metal shop. The applicant is also proposing to replace a gas regulator building. Goellner stated that Douglas Drive is being reconstructed in 2016-2017 and noted that the placement of the building and setbacks are shown on applicant's plans using the proposed new property lines. She referred to the parking on the site and stated that the City Code requires approximately 80 parking spaces and that the applicant is providing 208 spaces. She stated that the applicant is encouraged to add a sidewalk connecting their office to the proposed sidewalk along Douglas Drive. She referred to the site plan and discussed stormwater management and landscaping. She explained that the current pond on the site will be filled in, and a new pond will be constructed. The applicant is also proposing to remove 65 trees and to plant 132 new trees and has been directed to include shrub and perennial plantings as well. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary PUD plan subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 2 Segelbaum asked if there are any additional requirements that the applicant is required to meet due to the reconstruction of Douglas Drive. Goellner said no and added that the sidewalk along Douglas Drive will be provided with the reconstruction project. Kluchka asked Goellner to highlight where the sidewalk on Douglas Drive will be located and comment on if it is guaranteed to be built. Goellner referred to the site plan and showed where the proposed sidewalks will be located along Douglas Drive. Kluchka asked if that sidewalk will connect to the sidewalk on Golden Valley Road. Goellner said she believes it will. Waldhauser referred to the proposed number of parking spaces and asked why the additional parking is needed. Goellner said she thinks the number of spaces proposed fits with the number of employees on site. Segelbaum noted that the plans shown in the presentation show the driveways on Douglas Drive in alignment, but they were not aligned on the plans in the agenda packet. Waldhauser clarified that the driveway alignment issue is on Golden Valley Road, not Douglas Drive. Zimmerman added that Tennant currently has two driveways that will be consolidated and re -aligned with the reconstruction of the Douglas Drive/Golden Valley Road intersection. Blum asked if the applicant is regulating the inflow and outflow of gas at this facility. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if the proposed new facility will also be for that purpose or just for office purposes. Blum also asked if there are any environmental or safety considerations for increased capacity in the outflow of gas, or if that has a relationship to where the new facility is located ,on the ' property. ' Goellner said the applicant could help answer those questions. Segelbaum asked if the City has any record of there being any safety incidents at this location. Zimmerman said the Fire Department has had discussions about the appropriate fire suppression system and standards for the tank farm. Ross Hedlund, Frauenshuh Commercial, Representing the Applicant, said they are very excited about this project on an underutilized piece of property on Golden Valley. He said they have representatives in attendance from OPUS, Loucks, and CenterPoint to answer questions. Dave Long, Facilities Project Manager for Gas Operations, CenterPoint Energy, addressed the questions about the parking. He said they will have approximately 70 employees coming from other facilities who all have fleet vehicles. They will arrive in their personal vehicles and then take the fleet vehicles out for the day and come back. He said there will also be a number of other employees at this site. Waldhauser asked if the fleet vehicles are rotating in and out, or if they all arrive and leave at once. Long stated that they will leave the site between 6-8 am and will arrive back between 2:30-4 pm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 3 Vicki VanDell, Loucks Associates, Representing the Applicant, referred to the questions regarding the sidewalks and stated that they could put in a sidewalk connection from the proposed new building to Douglas Drive and another connection to Golden Valley Road. Kluchka asked about the traffic patterns on the site. VanDell referred to a site plan and explained that the Golden Valley Road entrance is mostly used by office staff. The Douglas Drive entrance is mostly used by operations, warehouse, and research staff. Long added that the Douglas Drive entrance will be used by construction and maintenance trucks and trucks delivering to the warehouse. Dan Young Dixon, OPUS Architects and Engineers, referred to a site plan and noted that the large open area in the center of the site is storage for piping used for installations. Kluchka asked if that open area will be paved. VanDell said it will be paved. Kluchka asked if that area would be screened. Dixon stated that the building will screen the open area, and that there is already a berm and fencing around the site and the tanks. Segelbaum said he would like to hear more about the overall screening for the whole site. He said this is fairly prominent area and screening is very important. VanDell referred to the landscaping plan and showed which trees will be removed for the construction of the new building and expanded parking area. She pointed out the evergreens, berms and deciduous trees on the site that will help provide screening. Waldhauserr recommended that the applicant provide building elevations and renderings that describe what people will see on the north and west sides of the property when walking or driving. Dixon referred to the design of the proposed new building and explained that the north side of the building is offices and will have a significant amount of glazing that will wrap around to the west side. The building will then be separated with pre -cast that will have recesses and reveals to break up the massing and will be painted to match with both light and dark colors. Kluchka stated that CenterPoint does a lot of education and suggested they install some kind of signage that describes their energy efficient message since this is a gateway area. Dixon agreed and stated that they are looking at LEED certification for the building as well. Blum asked about the volumes of gas being transferred through the facility currently, and what the volumes will be. Long stated that the peak shaving plant doesn't run all that much, it just runs when it is really cold outside. He added that the usage of the peak shaving plant is weather dependent and won't get used more as a result of this proposal. Kluchka asked what peak shaving means. Long explained that as the weather gets colder, the peak demand goes up, so they shave the peak off by injecting the system with compressed air to maintain the volume and pressure in the system. Blum asked if there will be a change in volume as a result of proposed expansion. Long said to his knowledge it will operate exactly like it has been. Blum asked if there are any new safety considerations as a result of what they are proposing to do on the property. Long said there could be as they continue to work with the Fire Chief. Kluchka asked about the plans for installing bike racks. Dixon said bike racks aren't shown on the plans yet, but they will be included. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 4 Kluchka reiterated that this property is going to become a significant gateway site. He said he is thinking about how this corner becomes a gateway to bikers. He said he would love to see any opportunities with this development and the street reconstruction to say welcome to Golden Valley. Dixon said he understands the gateway opportunity. He stated that the new pond and landscaping will be at the corner in order to highlight the intersection. Segelbaum noted that the south side of the property has bike traffic and he doesn't want the storage tanks to be the first thing people see. VanDell discussed the trees along the south side of the property. Kluchka said he is also interested in how the west elevation can be humanized and how drivers, bikers and pedestrians will be affected. He said he wants to understand how the building isn't going to seem too big when someone is walking past. Cera referred to the stormwater management plan and asked if the applicant is proposing both a storage basin and rain gardens. VanDell said they have a'high water table so infiltration is difficult, which is why they decided to do stormwater ponding on this site. However, there could be opportunities for surface infiltration along the west side of the property. Kluchka suggested that if the inside of the building has a visual interest that could also be highlighted. Segelbaum reiterated that the applicant shouldhave elevation plans and renderings ready to the show to the City Council. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Meena Shariff-Dean, 1350 Douglas Drive #106, asked is the existing pond will be removed. Kluchka said they will be removing and replacing the pond. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Zimmerman confirmed that the existing pond will be removed and two new ponds will be added on the north side of the site. Segelbaum asked about the requirements regarding ponds. Zimmerman said there are requirements for landscaping and the details will be reviewed as part of the stormwater review process. Cera asked if the original pond was built or if it is natural. Zimmerman said it was built. Kluchka asked staff to comment on the sidewalk and bike plan in this area. Zimmerman stated that there is a good layout for the vehicle lanes and bike lanes as part of the Douglas Drive reconstruction plans. He stated that he would ask staff from the Engineering division to come to a future Planning Commission meeting and present an updated plan of the Douglas Drive project. Kluchka asked if there are any plans for a wayside area or way finding signs for pedestrians and bikers. Zimmerman stated that there may be areas for bikers and pedestrians included in the final plans for the Douglas Drive reconstruction project but the plans are not yet complete. Kluchka asked about bus access. Zimmerman said he doesn't expect the bus access to change. Segelbaum said he is pleased to see that CenterPoint wants to invest in this site because it is a property in Golden Valley that is only going to become more prominent. He said he is also pleased to see increased landscaping and screening and he is hoping to see more Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 5 concrete information about screening in future elevations and renderings. Cera agreed that this will be a vast improvement over what is there now. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval regarding design review and approval. Segelbaum said the design is usually shown in the different plan views. Kluchka said he wants the Planning Commission to review and approve the design in this case especially because of its proximity to pedestrians, bikers, and drivers. Cera said he would like to know how this proposal compares to the impervious surface requirements in the Industrial zoning district. Zimmerman stated that the Industrial zoning district doesn't have impervious surface requirements. Cera said it would be nice to know how much impervious surface there will be on the site. Goellner stated that 66.1 % of the site will be impervious surface. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval regarding landscaping and screening. Segelbaum agreed and said he wants emphasis placed on screening. Kluchka summarized that the conditions should include: 1) screening as it relates to pedestrians, bikes, and cars; and 2) design review and approval. Segelbaum added that he would like to require that elevations, renderings, and views from the street be submitted. Zimmerman said a condition regarding bike racks should also be added. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by, Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for CenterPoint Energy PUD No. 122, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. This PUD will allow the applicant to better utilize the site by developing the operations facility on the site. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. The plan will utilize the perimeter of the site for tree plantings and stormwater management. 3 The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. The plan brings more active uses to this large site by providing office and warehouse uses, which are compatible with the current uses on the property. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The proposed uses are permitted in the Industrial zoning district. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. With exception of the issues raised by the Fire Chief, the plan generally meets the requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 6 Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Loucks Associates, submitted on March 20, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the City Engineer to the Planning Manager, dated March 13, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Chief to the Planning Manager, dated March 20, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. A park dedication fee of $72,540 (2% of the land market value) shall be paid prior to approval of the Final Plat. 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 122" in its title. 7. The applicant shall address screening and landscaping to describe views by pedestrians, bikers and car passengers including renderings. 8. The application will be subject to design review and approval that would include elevations, materials, and general renderings. 9. Bicycle racks shall be provided. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment — Hotel Parking Requirements — ZO00-97 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending language in the Zoning Code regarding hotel parking requirements. Goellner reminded the Commission that at their last meeting they discussed amending the Zoning Code language regarding hotel parking. She explained that the current number of required parking spaces for a hotel use is 1.5 spaces per unit plus parking for other uses. She reviewed several other cities requirements and said staff is recommending the parking requirement be changed to 1 parking space per unit plus parking for other uses. Segelbaum asked if other cities address what they feel is appropriate parking for banquet space. Goellner said not many cities she researched addressed banquet parking. Zimmerman added that Golden Valley's Code requires 1 space per 3 seats for convention and exhibition halls. Segelbaum suggested hotel banquet space be added to the convention and exhibition hall language because he is concerned that someone might take advantage if there are no requirements regarding banquet spaces. Waldhauser suggested that the language be changed to say event spaces. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 7 Blum said the language staff is recommending seems reasonable and consistent with what other communities are doing and it will give the Super 8 Hotel an opportunity to expand. Cera suggested reviewing a couple different areas of the parking language regarding events, banquets, and restaurants. Zimmerman said staff will review the language pertaining to those uses. Kluchka said he feels comfortable with the proposed change for hotel parking. Waldhauser said the expectation is if there is another use, staff would just figure out which parking requirements are compatible, so she doesn't have an issue with leaving the "other uses" language in the hotel parking requirements. Segelbaum said it is fine to use staff discretion but banquets and events are uses that can be anticipated so he'd like the language to be more clear in this case. Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission could just consider the proposed change to the hotel parking and staff could bring back additional information regarding other uses, or staff could review other uses and discuss them when this item goes to the City Council for consideration. Segelbaum said he is comfortable with the item going to the City Council, but if there are widely different numbers in staff's review it may be worth bringing the item back to Planning Commission. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend amending the Zoning Code regarding hotel parking requirements to 1 space per unit plus parking for other uses. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment — Single Family Residential Height and Side Setbacks — ZO00-98 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending language in the Zoning Code regarding building height, side setbacks, and side wall articulation requirements. Zimmerman explained that in 2006 the City studied infill development including height, massing, setbacks, etc. He reminded the Commissioners that they discussed the interpretation of the Zoning Code changes made as a result of the 2006 study at their last meeting and staff now has a clearer understanding of what was intended. He stated that the Planning Commission consensus was that height was to be measured at one spot at the street frontage, both side setbacks would increase the same amount according to that one front measurement, and that this was intended for new construction. He stated that what has been happening since 2006 was a tiered (wedding cake) setback for both new construction and remodels. He explained that one option is to grandfather in existing homes and move forward with the interpretation as intended, or another option is to change the Zoning Code language to match how staff has been interpreting the Code Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 8 since the infill development study changes were adopted. He showed the Commission several illustrations showing houses that interpreted the Zoning Code both ways. He added that the text amendment staff is bringing forward at this meeting is language that will grandfather in homes that were built prior to April 15, 2015. Cera asked if there needs to be language added to the Zoning Code to clarify the original intent. Zimmerman said the language doesn't need to be amended if the way it was meant to be interpreted is followed and applied uniformly. Segelbaum questioned if the proposed grandfathering language will apply to all side setbacks in the City. Zimmerman stated that the proposed language will apply to anything that was built with a building permit prior to the Zoning Code changes. Segelbaum questioned what would happen if something was built within a,setback area and asked if they would be considered legally non -conforming. Zimmerman stated that legally built structures would be allowed to remain and are considered to be conforming. He said he would get further clarification from the City Attorney. Blum said he would feel more comfortable if the proposed language pointed to the specific ordinance that they are trying to clarify and not include everything built in history. Zimmerman suggested rather than replacing the existing Subdivision 14 maybe the new language should state the dates of January 1, 2008, to April 15, 2015, in order to be more specific. Waldhauser noted that the same language regarding grandfathering was added to the Code in 2008 and questioned what harm there is in saying that everything legally built prior to a certain date is grandfathered in. Segelbaum said there is ambiguity regarding what the Zoning Code was at the time building permits were issued. He added that he is not sure that it is appropriate to change the language regarding structures that were built prior to 2008. Kluchka suggested adding language about variances in the proposed new ordinance. Cera said he doesn't want variances to become Zoning Code language. He wants variances to stay variances. Segelbaum said he's not sure the City knows what was compliant or not at the time building permits were issued, so he would like a separate section of Code addressing this time period. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Steve Schmidg'all, 6534 Olympia Street, said he was on the Planning Commission when they came up with the language regarding the increased side yard setbacks. He referred to an illustration showing the potential volume of a structure and said he thought that is what the Commission at the time was proposing. He said mostly what drove the efforts of the past study was unsightly tear downs and re -builds. He added that his intent was to define a buildable volume and that anything could be built as long as it was within the volume area. Steve Shapiro, 219 Meadow Lane North, encouraged there not to be a huge period of uncertainty. He said he knows when the City decided to study subdivisions there was question about what was going to be included and what was not and there ended up being six applications submitted in a midnight charge. He said from what he is understanding there are certain rules, which may or may not have been observed for many years, and now the City wants to really clamp down and make those rules rigid. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 9 said he wants to make sure there isn't a period where people can run in with their permit applications and they get in under the wink and nod rule. Todd Ereth, 240 Meadow Lane North, said he is encouraged to hear where this is going and is encouraged that the Planning Commission wants to take time to understand the gap period. He said there have been a lot of builds in his neighborhood, some have had the wedding cake shape and some have not. He said there has been some concerns about what the City was trying to do and what the City was approving because some have felt they are conforming and some have not. He said he appreciates the City trying to figure out what truly was conforming during that timeframe. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked Zimmerman about the timing of this amendment. Zimmerman stated that this item and the Subdivision Study recommendations are scheduled to be on the April 7 City Council agenda. If it is ready to go forward the language would be effective upon publication of the ordinance. He added that if more time is needed the conversation could be continued to the April 21 City Council agenda. Cera stated that he came across his copy of the Planning Commission minority report that became the majority report written in 2008 and it was clear how to interpret the Zoning Code language proposed at that time. He said he has a problem with the City continuing to misinterpret the Zoning Code language until April 15. He said people applying for building permits now should be told they have to follow the Zoning Code language as it was intended. Kluchka asked if policies have changed yet. Zimmerman said no, because people have submitted plans based on information given to them from the City. He said the idea was to allow those plans time to get through the building permit process. Kluchka asked if a communications campaign has been started to let people know about the April 15 deadline. Waldhauser said there is no way of knowing who is about to submit plans. Segelbaum questioned if the Planning Commission truly determined the intent of the Zoning Code language. The Commissioners agreed that they have determined that the language has been interpreted incorrectly. Blum said he agreed with Commissioner Cera that the City should not continue to misinterpret the: Zoning Code now that the intent is known. Zimmerman stated that the issue has not yet been considered by the City Council, so there is still a question of if they want to change the interpretation. Segelbaum suggested that the Commission discuss amending the proposed language. The Commissioners discussed at length the specific language in Subdivision 11(A)(3), Subdivision 14 and proposed a new Subdivision 15. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to amend Subdivision 11(A)(3) removing the words "any part of," as follows: Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any paFt 0 a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 10 The consensus of the Planning Commission was to keep Subdivision 14 as is. (Subdivision 14. Height and Side Setbacks of Pre -2008 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 2008, if the side setbacks and height were compliant with the Zoning Code at the time a building permit was issued, the location and height are considered conforming to current Zoning Code. However, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code.) The consensus of the Planning Commission is to amend staff's proposed language for Subdivision 14 by adding a new Subdivision 15 to read as follows: Subdivision 4-4 15. Side Setbacks of January 1, 2008 to Pre -April 15, 2015 Structures, Building Permits and Applications. For all structures constructed and building permits issued or applied therefor in the R-1 Zoning District on or after January 1, 2008, and prior to April 15, 2015, if the hyo side setbacks were considered by the City to be compliant with Section 11.21, Subdivision 11 (A)(3) of the Zoning Code at the time a building permit'was issued or applied therefor, the height and IoGatien are side setback is considered` conforming. to GUFFent Zoning Code, However, in all cases, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following: Modify the proposed Subdivision 14, making it Subdivision 15, to include the dates and various edits reviewed earlier. • Edit the Zoning Code, Section 11.21, Subdivision 11(A)(3) second sentence phrasing to read ... the distance between a structure and the side lot line shall be governed by the following requirements: --Short Recess -- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman gave an update on the Liberty Crossing proposal at Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road. Kluchka asked about the status of the Golden Villas proposal and the J -HAP proposal. Zimmerman said both of these projects are still moving forward. He stated that the City Council liked the idea of a pedestrian overlay district for the Golden Valley Road/TH 55 area. He said they also want to consider rezoning the vacant parcels on Golden Valley Road to allow senior housing. 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 11 No report was given. Kluchka referred to the motion the Commission made at their last meeting recommending that the City Council consider traffic issues on Wayzata Blvd. He stated that he has since learned that if there is something the Commission wants the Council to consider, the process is for the Chair to send a letter to Council, not to make a motion at the Commission meeting. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city of 0- golden.. MEMORAN valley Physical Development Department 763-593-80951763-593-8109 (fax) Date: April 13, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Rezoning and Preliminary PUD Plan for Liberty Crossing PUD No. 123 – 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North – Intuitive Investments, Applicant Background Intuitive Investments is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to create a residential development consisting of a 184 unit apartment building and 63 townhomes in the southeast quadrant of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue North intersection. As part of the development, the properties would need to be rezoned to High Density Residential. The proposal involves four lots, all containing existing structures—the VFW building at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road (3.0 acres), a car wash at 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North (0.88 acres), an Asian restaurant at 2480 Winnetka Avenue North (1.6 acres), and the vacant SIFCO building at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North (5.4 acres). In total, the land area of all four properties is 10.88 acres. In the northwest corner of the block, the Walgreens, Dairy Queen, and Midland Auto buildings would all remain. To the south, the public storage buildings would also remain. Surrounding the site are single family homes to the west (across Winnetka), the public storage site to the south, commercial and multi -family residential uses to the north (across Medicine Lake Road in New Hope), and multi -family residential and open space to the east (across Rhode Island) in the form of the Dover Hills Apartments, Pennsylvania Woods, and Decola Pond B. Currently, the site can be accessed via two driveways on Winnetka, two driveways on Rhode Island, and two driveways on Medicine Lake Road. In addition, a narrow right-of-way extends from the VFW site to Winnetka to the west. Three of the properties (the VFW, the car wash, and the Asian restaurant) are zoned Commercial. The SIFCO property is zoned Light Industrial. On December 2, 2014, the City Council approved re - designating these properties as High Density Residential on the General Land Use Plan Map. This request has been sent to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. x M o 7751-75 `D °D 8025 2542 AO 600 2486 2476 2564 2520 2458 �g "o # 2g60 2A4 I 2R6 2500 2414 2436 CD N 0 A 2t�0`' 2�b0 ZgAS 2°�,`fl I , N v 2Ap0 o u) 2 ,5 o v cQ N 2400 CO CM N ^�7O V O a� r-- o 6 V O 2337 r� 0 -be IbO 'e N 7955 7925:.. °2240 ao m oo m c 2220 Proposed PUD 123 - Site Map Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD would allow for the consolidation of the properties and the construction of a 184 unit apartment building and 15 townhome buildings containing 63 units. The apartment building would be located in the southeastern portion of the site and would be complemented by an outdoor pool, a dog run, a play area, and a community amenity building containing fitness equipment. The apartment building would be five stories above ground and one level below grade for parking. Four townhome buildings, each two stories and containing six units, would be located on the northernmost portion of the site, closest to Medicine Lake Road. Six additional two story townhome buildings, four containing four units and two containing six units, would be located on the westernmost portion of the site along Winnetka Avenue. To the south, five one story townhome buildings would containing 11 units. Access to the site would primarily be from Winnetka Avenue, with two drives serving the majority of the townhomes and the apartment building. Additional access to the apartment building, including to the underground parking entrance, would be off of Rhode Island Avenue in the southeast corner of the site. Under this proposal, direct access to Medicine Lake Road would be removed and the northernmost townhomes would be accessed through the site via Winnetka. Proposed Site layout The underground parking level of the apartment building would provide 232 stalls. A surface parking area in front of the building would provide another 56 spaces for a total of 288 spaces Based on the parking requirements of the Zoning Code, 276 spaces are required. All but five of the townhome units would have garage space for two cars; five of the townhome units would have garage space for one car. In addition, 17 driveway spaces would be provided for the 11 one story townhomes for a total of 138 parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements of the Zoning Code, 126 spaces are required. 39 additional parking spaces would be available along the internal street network. Existing sidewalks along Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road would be preserved, and a new internal sidewalk network would be added to move pedestrians through the site. As outlined in the Engineering Division memo, staff recommends the applicant explore additional pedestrian connections to Walgreens and to the existing trails in Pennsylvania Woods to the east. Per the Zoning Code, bicycle racks or a similar facility must be available to the public at a rate of 5% of the required vehicle parking. Based on the 184 apartment units and 276 vehicle spaces required, 14 public bicycle spaces must be provided. Land Use and Zoning Considerations As a PUD, the City can offer flexibility from the regular zoning requirements in order to achieve a better development. The following table summarizes how closely the requirements of the R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District are met under the current proposal: The site will be divided into 65 individual lots, including 63 townhome lots and a large lot containing the apartment building. All remaining property, primarily consisting of circulation and parking areas, will be combined into one lot. Although the amount of impervious coverage is slightly higher than what would be allowed under the typical R-4 zoning designation, the amount of impervious coverage is actually a reduction from the existing conditions. In addition, the innovative storm water management system being proposed in partnership with the City (see below) will result in the removal of a portion of Rhode Island Avenue to the east, increasing the amount of pervious surfaces in the area even further. R-4 High Density Residential Liberty Crossing Use Multiple -family dwellings Apartment and townhomes Dimensional Standards Minimum lot area 20,000 square feet for any principal structure Total site area over 473,000 square feet; largest lot at 160,229 — smallest at 1,608 Minimum lot width at front setback line 150' Greater than 290' Structure coverage 45% maximum 25.4% Impervious coverage 60% maximum 63.1% Front setback 25' 25' along Winnetka, 28' along Rhode Island, 40' along Medicine Lake Road Side setback 20' 47' along Walgreens property Rear setback 20' 22' along south property line Accessory structures Includes private indoor and outdoor recreation facilities Pool, play area, and clubhouse/fitness building The site will be divided into 65 individual lots, including 63 townhome lots and a large lot containing the apartment building. All remaining property, primarily consisting of circulation and parking areas, will be combined into one lot. Although the amount of impervious coverage is slightly higher than what would be allowed under the typical R-4 zoning designation, the amount of impervious coverage is actually a reduction from the existing conditions. In addition, the innovative storm water management system being proposed in partnership with the City (see below) will result in the removal of a portion of Rhode Island Avenue to the east, increasing the amount of pervious surfaces in the area even further. PUD Standards and Guidelines There are a handful of standards and guidelines set within Section 11.55 of the City Code that regulate PUDs. The following table summarizes how closely the requirements of this section are met under the current proposal: Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on March 31, 2015, and roughly 14 people attended. The developer presented the project and answered questions related to site layout, stormwater, access, and the development timeline. Stormwater Management As outlined in more detail in the memo from the Engineering Division, management of stormwater for this project would be handled both through an above ground pre-treatment and filtration basin but also through a network of modular underground storage chambers. This system would not only manage water originating on-site, but, through a partnership with the City, would help capture large amounts of water that currently cause flooding issues along Medicine Lake Road and in the Decola Ponds area. Water moving southeast from Medicine Lake Road would be diverted through the construction of an open swale into Decola Pond B. When water levels reach a critical depth, the overflow would be diverted into the underground storage chambers on the subject property and would be released gradually over a period of time as water in the Decola Pond system lowers. The construction of the swale would necessitate the removal of a portion of Rhode Island Avenue south of the entrance to Dover Hills and north of the entrance to the site and the new apartment building. The creation of this new green space not only enhances the apartment building, but removes existing impervious surfaces and provides a direct link from the site to Pennsylvania Woods and the existing trails. Engineering and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities. A Planned Unit Developments Liberty Crossing Lot size No minimum NA Frontage 100' or adequate to serve the Greater than 290' development Principal building setbacks No closer than its height to NA the rear or side property line of a single-family district All building setbacks No closer than 15' from the Meets requirements back of curb along internal roadway systems Private service facilities or Operation and maintenance Will be included with Final common areas agreements required PUD approval Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on March 31, 2015, and roughly 14 people attended. The developer presented the project and answered questions related to site layout, stormwater, access, and the development timeline. Stormwater Management As outlined in more detail in the memo from the Engineering Division, management of stormwater for this project would be handled both through an above ground pre-treatment and filtration basin but also through a network of modular underground storage chambers. This system would not only manage water originating on-site, but, through a partnership with the City, would help capture large amounts of water that currently cause flooding issues along Medicine Lake Road and in the Decola Ponds area. Water moving southeast from Medicine Lake Road would be diverted through the construction of an open swale into Decola Pond B. When water levels reach a critical depth, the overflow would be diverted into the underground storage chambers on the subject property and would be released gradually over a period of time as water in the Decola Pond system lowers. The construction of the swale would necessitate the removal of a portion of Rhode Island Avenue south of the entrance to Dover Hills and north of the entrance to the site and the new apartment building. The creation of this new green space not only enhances the apartment building, but removes existing impervious surfaces and provides a direct link from the site to Pennsylvania Woods and the existing trails. Engineering and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities. A memorandum from the Engineering Division that addresses flood mitigation, access and circulation, pedestrian facilities, sanitary sewer and water services, inflow and infiltration, stormwater management, and tree preservation is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses site access, site design, and water supply is attached. Anticipated Development Timeline The applicant has completed the purchase of the SIFCO site and anticipates completing the purchases of the other properties in early summer of 2015. Upon final approval of the PUD in the fall, demolition of the existing buildings could proceed, beginning with the SIFCO property. It is anticipated that site work and construction of the underground parking level of the apartment building could take place in the late fall, with additional work on the apartment building continuing throughout the winter. Working with the City, the underground storage could be installed early in 2016 with construction of the townhomes taking place soon afterwards. Leasing for the apartment and townhomes could happen as early as late 2016. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot. Applications for PUDs must be consistent with the Intent and Purpose provisions and the PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to in the City. In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. The applicant worked closely with the City during a lengthy pre -application process—and has continued to refine the proposal—in order to accommodate the unique circumstances surrounding the site. The flexibility allowed under a PUD is necessary to achieve the outcome that will not only benefit the applicant, but the City as a whole. Staff believes this standard has been met. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. Given the lack of open space or other sensitive environmental features on the site today, there is little available for the applicant to preserve. However, the proposal does take advantage of the natural areas of Pennsylvania Woods and Decola Pond B to the east and, in partnership with the City, will use a constructed swale to manage stormwater more effectively and result in the creation of additional green space within in the Rhode Island Avenue right of way. Staff believes this standard has been met. 3. Efficient — Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. The proposal not only provides for an increase in residential density in an underutilized area well served by transit, but the creative inclusion of regional flood storage within the development provides a benefit to the greater area. Staff believes this standard has been met. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The use of this property for higher density residential use is compatible with the neighboring property to the east and the density being proposed is consistent with the City's revised Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes this standard has been met. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. The potential for reduction in flooding along Medicine Lake Road and within the Decola Ponds area provides great benefit to the City and its residents. Staff believes this standard has been met. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a better site layout and coordination between the two uses on the site. Staff believes this standard has been met. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Liberty Crossing PUD No. 123, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Tanek, submitted March 12, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated April 8, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated April 9, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 14 bicycles shall be provided, based on a calculation of 5% of the 276 parking spaces required for the apartment building. 5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 123" in its title. 7. A park dedication fee of $60,100, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Zoning Map Amendment The properties at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North are currently zoned Commercial. The property at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North is currently zoned Light Industrial. Under the proposal, the Zoning Map would need to be amended so that all of the properties would be zoned as High Density Residential (R-4), which provides for high density housing of over 12 units per acre. Based on the density of the proposed PUD of 22.7 units per acre, High Density Residential zoning would be the most appropriate designation for this site. This would be consistent with the recently revised land use designation of High Density Residential on the City's General Land Use Plan Map. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, rezoning 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North from Commercial to High Density Residential (R-4) and 2430 Winnetka Avenue North from Light Industrial to High Density Residential (R-4). Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) Memo from the Fire Department dated April 8, 2015 (4 pages) Memo from the Engineering Division dated April 9, 2015 (7 pages) Neighborhood Meeting presentation from March 31, 2015 (9 pages) High Density Residential (R-4) Zoning District Section of City Code (3 pages) Official Zoning Map (1 page) Plans from Tanek Architecture submitted March 12, 2015 (7 pages) Site Survey submitted March 30, 2015 (1 page) Preliminary Plat submitted April 8, 2015 (1 page) J W � —� �- � �- U QUEBEC l LL 1.........a...........................��.......... n.u..e lake 550 8179 8139 6101 2550 7825 --- 8181 I 77757751 8025 2575 222 2526 2500 8140 8100 • — 254222252524 222236 2548156�'�9198 2<"<241L224f 2580 �S58 Go '252506'10 7 2511rAveN Subject Properties. X554 2511 2486 245 2552156(' 2�' 2476 2� 8159 8101 a 2562 2504 ^ . 24, 2480 2485 2500 2 412 428 0 ,4 1 2445 $ 2400 2568 2500 2424182 2423 2400 2405 2440 2445 2450 405 .n...7.....,.,...,.,r..z, Z 242 0 2422 2 101 2440 Zig 16 A2.100 2380 2385 8040 8020 2325 Q 21 )1011101 _ 240 2400 '.8 _ 2360 2365 2415 H 319 705 JUriellerl Ln 519 719 718 2355 2340 2345 80458015 8005 0 1 09 7979 24 K335 _„_..... 2320 8100 80 8020 40 8000 315 2430r ylr 'r 7980 2337 Z "1( 8155 8135 8105 8045 8015 2315 a 2320 2325 > 2300 8100 2008180 8140 8040 8020 8000 L > 2300 yy y 23rd Ave N 2301 225 2255 2250 2255 Z 2250 7955 7925 I r C 7901 785378337831' 2220 2225 2220 7851 ��� Z1jrlytlr 2225 1200 2205 2200 79607946 22 2205 09 2202 alAtri ' 7920_ 2205 I I I I 2200 Pennsylvania March 12, 2015 Liberty Crossing — Intuitive Investments PUD Narrative Outline on PUD Zoning Code a) The Liberty Crossing PUD development encourages, preserves and improves the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. Liberty Crossing is working with the Golden Valley Engineering Department to mitigate storm water flooding in this area of Golden Valley. This effort will improve the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Golden Valley. In addition the redevelopment will improve the current level of water quality and storm water management on this 10 acre site. b) The Liberty Crossing PUD development achieves a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land use. The Liberty Crossing site and land use plan will deliver high quality, best practices site planning and design, landscaping and building materials to the development. c) The Liberty Crossing PUD development encourages preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, water ways, wetlands and lakes. The development will provide new storm water management improvements that will enhance and protect the Decola Pond system in Golden Valley as well as the surrounding properties and infrastructure. d) The Liberty Crossing PUD development encourages construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types. Liberty Crossing will provide a wide variety of including affordable rental properties to Golden Valley. The combination of rental apartments, one story and two story townhomes will also provide housing for a large demographic of the population. e) The Liberty Crossing PUD development encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. The development includes a variety of land development techniques and uses on this site. This development includes low density and high density residential properties as well as creating open space and increasing the existing green space on the site. f) The Liberty Crossing PUD development encourages efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public features. The redevelopment will remove older obsolete buildings on the property which include the existing land, open space, streets and tultites. The new buildings will include the most current practices in design and construction to provide efficiency and sustainability in design and construction. g) The Liberty Crossing PUD development allows mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels. Currently the development consists of four separate land parcels. The PUD will allow the developer to combine the parcels into a larger parcel and provide both low density and high density residential uses. h) The Liberty Crossing PUD development encourages development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. The Liberty Crossing surrounding area and properties is largely mixed use including single family, multi family, industrial, retail and institutional uses. The proposed low density and high density uses at Liberty Crossing will prove very compatible to the surrounding uses. i) The Liberty Crossing PUD development achieves development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Golden Valley has already reviewed and approved a revision to their Comprehensive Plan for the Liberty Crossing use. The Met Council is considering a similar approval in the very near future. j) The Liberty Crossing PUD development achieves development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. The development will provide a significant upgrade to the northwest corner of Golden Valley by removing four old structures which are currently underutilized properties. The new development will provide 247 units of housing for approximately 370 to 425 residents that will positively impact the City of Golden Valley including the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. k) The Liberty Crossing PUD development encourages development that is sustainable and has a high degree of energy efficiency. The new residential buildings constructed at Liberty Crossing will be state of the art in both green design and include efficient materials during construction and in ongoing property operations. Date: April 6, 2015 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Cc: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Fire Department Subject: Preliminary PUD #123 for Liberty Crossings The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the preliminary PUD plans submitted on March 12, 2015 for Liberty Crossings. This Preliminary PUD application proposes the removal of 4 existing structures and the construction of a 6 story apartment building, a clubhouse/fitness center and a variety of 63 single -story and two-story townhouses grouped in clusters of either 2, 3, 4 or 6 units. SITE ACCESS The current proposal has 3 points of access to public streets. One entrance off of Rhode Island Avenue from the south and two entrances off of Winnetka Avenue. All private roads on site are designed with a minimum width of between 26 % feet to 30 feet. The plans shows truck movements throughout the site confirming that a minimum width of 20 feet and a 45 foot turning radius will accommodate larger trucks as required by the Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC). Based on the vehicle movements ALL personal vehicle parking will need to in designated parking stalls as shown on the plan. Nose in parking in front of the two-story townhouse that face each other will not be allowed due to the limited road width / limit space in front of the garages. Areas that are not designated parking will need to be properly identified with yellow painted curbing and signage as required by MSFC. The plans do not give specifics on what standard the roads will be constructed to. Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) section 503.2.3 states: "Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities". In general the fire department will NOT drive a fire Page 1 of 4 engine or a ladder truck on private roadway for the purpose of providing emergency services unless the surfaces have been designed to carry the imposed loads of commercial vehicles. Roadways that are not designed to support the imposed loads will incur damage when driven on. Large emergency vehicles may be in danger of breaking through the bituminous surface and getting stuck. These same concerns would also impact garbage trucks and other large commercial vehicles. BUILDING / SITE In reviewing the requirements of MSFC section 503.1.1 of providing access to within 150 feet of all portions of the buildings. All of the 2 family, 3 family, 4 family and 6 family townhouse are compliant with this code requirement. The apartment building is NOT compliant with this requirement. It should be noted that the Fire Code Official is authorized to increase this dimension if the building is protected throughout with a fire sprinkler system. Currently the apartment building is not complaint. In lieu of the 150 feet of access provision, the City will trade off limited access for a building that is fully protected by fire sprinklers including areas that are typically exempt such as small bath rooms, closets and possibly decks. Also, the inclusion of additional wet standpipes for fire hoses, spaced in a way that would provide floor coverage to all areas using 100 feet of hose and 30 feet of hose stream reach. Radio operability — All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. The building shall be considered to have acceptable emergency responder radio coverage when signal strength measurements in 95 percent of all areas on each floor of the building meet the minimum signal strength requirement of -95 dBm receivable and transmittable from the building. WATER SUPPLY The new 6 story apartment building is proposed to be of type III -B construction with an approximate size of 240,000 sq. ft. In reviewing the water flow requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) appendix B and C, this building requires a water flow in excess of 8,000 gpm. The building is required to be protected with a fire sprinkler suppression system. Based on MSFC, a 50% reduction in water flow will be allowed which equates to a required flow of 4,000 gpm. Based on the number of hydrants shown on the plan and the way they are spaced, the building appears to be complaint with the requirements of MSFC appendix B and C. The townhouses are also required by code to be protected with a fire sprinkler suppression system. Base on the requirements of the MSFC, the requirements for the number of fire hydrants and the spacing appears to be compliant. It appears that this 8 -inch line is a combination water line serving both domestic and fire suppression water systems. Based on the current configuration, the maximum size domestic line that could be split off is 2 -inch. Based on other large apartment buildings in the City, a 2- inch domestic line will not be adequate for serving this building. It is recommended that an fl- inch fire line and a separate parallel XX -inch domestic water line be installed which connects directly to the 8 -inch water main located in the street. The 8 -inch fire protection water line running into the south side of the building shall be arranged in accordance with 2010 edition of NFPA 24 section 6.2.11 options 1, 2 or 6. a. Option 1: A Yard Post Indicator Valve (YPIV) 40 feet from the building. b. Option 2: no YPIV, just bring the fire protection water directly into a 1 hour fire rated room with direct exterior access into the room. c. Option 3: no YPIV, just bring the fire protection water directly into a non -fire rated room and providing a Wall Post Indicator Valve (WPIV). The installation of the fire hydrants shall be within 100 feet of any fire department sprinkler/standpipe connection located on the building. The plan does not indicate a location of the fire department connection. City and private fire hydrants may be used when determining the 100 feet distance. The layout of water mains throughout the development consists of a network of 8 -inch piping with two connections to the water main on Rhode Island Avenue North. There is a total of 10 fire hydrants throughout the development. Currently there are not any sectional control valves shown within the development which means the entire complex would need to be shut down for a single water main break. Also, there appears to be no sectional control valves on the water main along the Rhode Island Avenue. Sectional valves need to be added within the development and the main serving the northeast area should be looped out to the water main on either Medicine Lake Road or Winnetka Avenue N. These issues should be discussed with the Cities Engineering Department. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval subject to following conditions: 1. Site access to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of the apartment building has not been provided. Prior to the final PUD approval the developer shall work with Fire Department Staff to develop an acceptable tradeoff for not meeting access requirements of the MSFC 2. Prior to occupancy of this project the property owner, the contractor and Fire Department Staff need to identify all areas that need to be designated as fire lane. Areas that are to be designated fire lane shall have the curbs painted yellow and no parking fire lanes signs shall be installed. 3. After the apartment building is substantially completed, the owner will have a qualified company evaluate 800 mhz radio signals in the lower levels of the apartment building. Areas that fall short of adequate signal strength shall be corrected. 4. All Roads shall be designed to carry the imposed vehicle loads of fire vehicles. The design of the road shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final PUD approval, the water main system shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineering Staff and Fire Department Staff. This would include the addition of sectional control valves and possible connection to the water main on either Medicine Lake Road or Winnetka Avenue N. 6. Prior to final PUD approval, the configuration of the fire line serving the apartment building needs to identified and conform to one of the three options allowed by code 7. Prior to final PUD approval, the arrangement of piping for the domestic water line serving the apartment building needs to be identified. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or e-mail icrelly@g_oldenvalleymn.gov city0f Olde MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: April 9, 2015 To: U-S'son Zimmerman, Planning Mana er From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Liberty Crossing PUD #123 — Preliminary PUD Review Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed Liberty Crossing planned unit development (PUD), submitted by Intuitive Investments (Developer). The proposed PUD is located between Winnetka Avenue and Rhode Island Avenue, immediately south of Medicine Lake Road. The PUD is approximately 10.8 acres and is comprised of four existing commercial properties. The proposed redevelopment of the site includes the construction of a 184 -unit apartment building, 63 townhomes and a community building with an outdoor pool. This memorandum discusses the issues identified during the Engineering review that must be addressed prior to final PUD plan submittal. The comments contained in this review are based on the plans submitted to the City on March 16, 2015. Preliminary Site Plan The proposed PUD includes the demolition of four existing commercial properties and the construction of new apartments and townhomes. The five -story apartment building will be generally located in the southeast portion of the site and will include one level of underground parking beneath the apartment property. The townhomes will be distributed around the site to include the following: 24 units located in the north portion of the site; 28 units in the west portion of the site; and 11 units located along the south boundary of the PUD. As part of the proposed PUD, the four commercial buildings will be demolished to make way for the redevelopment. The Developer must obtain the appropriate City permits for demolition of the existing buildings, and removal of all utilities, pavements, and other related infrastructure. Flood Mitigation The portion of the PUD located near the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Rhode Island Avenue experiences significant flooding during large precipitation events. The cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal have been studying this area as part of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Study. As such, the Developer has been G:\Developments - Private\Liberty Crossing\Memos\Liberty_PrelimPUD_Review_040615.docx working with the City to ensure that the new development is constructed above the flood elevations, while mitigating any potential flood impacts that may result from the development and potentially creating additional flood storage to benefit the entire subwatershed. The preliminary site plan shows the construction of a large conveyance swale and underground storage tank in the northeast corner of the site, and also within public right-of-way, as a way to mitigate any potential flood impacts and potentially create additional flood storage. The plan also shows the removal of a portion of Rhode Island Avenue between the Dover Hill entrance and the proposed south entrance to the development. The pavement will be replaced with a vegetated open space, including the conveyance swale, in this area. Because of the complexity of the flooding issues, and the potential public benefit, the City has retained a consultant to work on the preliminary design of the conveyance swale and underground flood storage tank, including working closely with the Developer to ensure compatibility with the plans. Upon preliminary review of the plans submitted by the Developer, staff recommends that the Developer continue to work with the City to explore ways to increase the volume of flood storage in order to maximize the long term flood mitigation efforts within the subwatershed. It is early in the collaborative design process and therefore additional discussion will continue as the project moves forward. Access and Circulation There are currently eight driveways serving the existing commercial properties, five of which are located on Hennepin County Highways (three on Winnetka Avenue and two on Medicine Lake Road). The preliminary PUD plans submitted show an overall reduction in the number of driveways, with two proposed access points onto Winnetka Avenue and one onto Rhode Island Avenue in the southeast corner of the site. Engineering staff generally supports the access plan and the reduction in driveways, but raises the following concerns that need to be discussed further with the Developer: 1. Address how the Walgreens south access road that connects Winnetka to Rhode Island Avenue will interact with the Development. 2. Address the shared driveway on Winnetka that also serves the Dairy Queen. (The VFW property currently includes a 12 -foot strip of land that extends west to Winnetka, and no access easement is shown on the survey.) 3. Consideration should be made to align proposed driveways with existing driveways that are across the street, to the extent feasible. 4. Staff has concerns about the alignment of the ramp down to the underground parking for the apartments, and how it will operate at the intersection with Rhode Island Avenue (and future cul-de-sac) and the private drive for the development. Details will be discussed further with the Developer before final PUD plan submittal. 5. Provide the proposed load design of the private streets within the development. The PUD includes the removal of existing driveway entrances and the construction of new entrances, both on City and County streets. Therefore, a City Right -of -Way Management Permit is G:\Developments - Private\Liberty Crossing\Memos\Liberty_PrelimPUD_Review_040615.docx required. All driveway entrances must meet the City standards for commercial driveway aprons. In addition, a Hennepin County permit will be required for all work within County right-of-way. Hennepin County is planning a pavement mill and overlay project on Winnetka Avenue in the summer of 2015. If possible, the Developer should attempt to perform the driveway apron work and all utility disconnections and new connections requiring street excavation and restoration, prior to the County mill and overlay project. Utility permits and right-of-way permits will be required from the City and Hennepin County for work within the public right-of-way. Pedestrian Facilities The preliminary site plan submitted by the Developer includes a significant number of sidewalks for internal circulation. Following are comments regarding the sidewalks and trails and connections to the public system: 1. The Developer should explore incorporating connections to the existing Walgreens sidewalk on the south side of the Walgreens property. 2. In the southeast corner of the PUD, staff recommends that the Developer include a connection (or show a future connection) to the City's sidewalk on Rhode Island Avenue, immediately north of the future cul-de-sac. 3. In the northwest corner of the PUD, consider a ramp down or "switch back" to the sidewalk on Medicine Lake Road, west of the stairway shown on the plan, if feasible. 4. The site plan does not show a trail (or future trail) on the west side of the conveyance swale. Consider including this as an amenity for the development. The City will discuss this further with the Developer as part of the preliminary flood mitigation design work. 5. The sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue is owned and maintained by the City and therefore must be reconstructed to meet City standards and ADA guidelines, including the construction of curb ramps at all intersections with driveways. Details will be discussed further with the Developer. Site Survey and Preliminary Plat Site Survey The Developer has submitted an ALTA land title survey of the property within the proposed PUD. The site is comprised of four existing parcels, as summarized below: • VFW site at 7775 Medicine Lake Road (Lot 1, Block 1 of Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051) • SIFCO site at 2430 Winnetka Avenue (Lot 1, Block 1 of MCTAC Addition) • Car Wash site at 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North (Lot 2, Block 1 of MCTAC Addition) • Restaurant site at 2480 Winnetka Avenue (not part of any plat of record) The existing public easements within the properties above will need to be vacated as part of the development. The City will initiate the vacation process upon application by the Developer, and G:\Developments - Private\Liberty Crossing\Memos\Liberty_PrelimPUD_RevieW_040615.dOcx the process will run concurrent with the final plat approval. The Developer must provide the City with legal descriptions and exhibits for the easement vacation, as may be required. Staff noticed there are a number of items, including utilities, that are missing or mislabeled on the survey. Engineering staff will discuss this further with the Developer. Preliminary Plat The Developer has submitted a preliminary plat for review. Prior to final PUD plan submittal, the Developer must include the following items: 1. The dedication of public right-of-way for the future Rhode Island Avenue cul-de-sac in the south end of the PUD, if a cul-de-sac design is the preferred alternative. 2. The dedication of drainage and utility easements over the proposed underground flood storage tank and conveyance swale. 3. The dedication of drainage and utility easements along public streets, property lines, and plat boundaries consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. This PUD is adjacent to County Highways 156 (Winnetka Avenue) and 70 (Medicine Lake Road) and therefore, the plans must also be submitted to Hennepin County for review and comment. Preliminary Utility Plan (Water and Sanitary Sewer) The Developer has submitted a preliminary utility plan showing the extension of new water and sanitary sewer mains into the PUD. The City's water and sanitary sewer systems that provide service to these properties appear to have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed redevelopment. Staff offers the following comments in regards to the preliminary utility plan: 1. The Developer proposes to loop the watermain through the development with two connections to the City's system on Rhode Island Avenue. In order to minimize water service interruptions within the PUD during future potential water breaks or shut -offs, staff recommends removing the north connection on Rhode Island Avenue and instead connecting to the City's main within Winnetka Avenue. Staff will discuss this further with the Developer prior to final PUD plan submittal. 2. An adequate number of water valves should be proposed and shown on the plans to allow for isolation of certain mains, and to minimize impacts to residents, in the event that a break or shut-off occurs. 3. It is anticipated that the water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer systems within the PUD will be owned and maintained by the Developer or future property owner. The City and Developer will discuss this in more detail before final PUD plan submittal. 4. The private utilities that currently serve the existing parcels are generally located overhead. To the extent feasible, the new private utilities installed for this PUD must be placed underground. In addition, joint trench construction methods must be employed to minimize the amount of space consumed by the utilities. G:\Developments - Private\Liberty Crossing\Memos\Liberty_PrelimPUD_Review_040615.docx Inflow and Infiltration In order to help reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration of clear water into the sanitary sewer system, the City has an Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Ordinance. All existing and proposed buildings within the PUD must comply with the City's 1/1 Ordinance. City records show that some of the existing properties do not have 1/1 Certificates of Compliance. The Developer is working with the City to execute deposit agreements prior to the sale of properties, to ensure that existing sewer systems are removed or lined to achieve compliance with the ordinance as part of the development. Upon completion of the sewer work, the new sewer mains and services must be inspected and found to be compliant with the 1/1 ordinance, prior to occupancy of the buildings. In order to complete the utility work described above, the Developer will need to excavate public streets. A City Right -of -Way Management Permit is required for all excavations and obstructions within City right-of-way and easements. All pavements and subgrades must be restored according to City standards. In addition, a Hennepin County permit will be required for all work within County right-of-way. Work on county roads must be coordinated with Hennepin County, especially on Winnetka Avenue as it relates to the timing of the County's mill and overlay project this summer. Stormwater Management This PUD is within the Main Stem subwatershed of the Bassett Creek watershed. More specifically, it is located within the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Study area. The site generally drains from north to south via storm sewer systems located within Rhode Island Avenue and Winnetka Avenue, eventually discharging into the DeCola Ponds system and Bassett Creek. The PUD proposes to disturb approximately 10 acres and will reduce the impervious surface area by about 0.5 acres. The PUD is subject to the review and approval of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Plans will be forwarded to the BCWMC once they are found to be acceptable by the City. According to the preliminary grading, drainage, and erosion control plan submitted by the Developer, the vast majority of the site (over 8 acres) will drain to a stormwater quality treatment system comprised of a pre-treatment basin and filtration basin, before discharge off site. Peak runoff rates, stormwater volume, and phosphorus and sediment loads are being reduced as a result of the stormwater treatment proposed. The Developer has provided stormwater calculations which will be reviewed in more detail, along with the basin designs, prior to final PUD plan submittal. Staff offers the following comments regarding the preliminary grading, drainage, and erosion control plan submitted: 1. The Developer is encouraged to continue to explore adding stormwater practices that will retain or reuse stormwater volume on site, consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Construction Permit, the City's Stormwater Ordinance, and BCWMC requirements. GADevelopments - Private\Liberty Crossing\Memos\Liberty_PrelimPUD_Review_040615.docx 2. The Developer is encouraged to take a more distributive approach that would reduce the size of the largest drainage area into smaller areas with facilities that would provide more effective water quality treatment, and possibly route stormwater away from the flood storage facilities. 3. Storm sewers have been extended throughout the site to accommodate runoff from the new development. The plans do not include pretreatment measures prior to discharge to the basins. Staff recommends including 4 -foot deep sump structures fitted with SAFL baffles or similar devices to reduce the amount of sediment that will accumulate in the basins. All storm sewer facilities and stormwater quality treatment facilities within this PUD will be owned and maintained by the Developer or future property owner. A maintenance agreement outlining these responsibilities will be drafted by the City and must be signed by the Developer prior to the issuance of permits. The Developer or contractor must obtain a City Stormwater Management Permit before construction. A stormwater management plan meeting the standards of the City of Golden Valley must be included with the permit application. Plan review and approval by the BCWMC must also be completed before a City Stormwater Management Permit can be issued. This PUD is also subject to the requirements of the MPCA Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of this permit and the corresponding Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted to the City before work can begin. Preliminary Tree Preservation/Landscape Plan The PUD is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and Minimum Landscape Standards. A Tree Preservation Plan with a tabular inventory has been submitted by the Developer. Based upon the tree removals proposed, the Developer must obtain a Tree Preservation Permit. In order to determine the mitigation required, the Developer must clearly identify all significant trees within the table submitted as part of the final PUD plans. The plans do not currently include foundation plantings, or the planting of shrubs and perennials within the site as outlined in the City's minimum landscape standards. The Developer must include the proposed landscaping on the final tree preservation and landscape plan. The City Forester will review the plans in more detail once submitted. Financial securities will be based upon the final tree and landscape plans submitted by the Developer. Staff will work with the Developer to determine these amounts once the plans have been received. Summary and Recommendations Engineering staff recommends approval of the Liberty Crossing PUD preliminary PUD plans subject to the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows: I. Staff recommends that the Developer continue to work with the City to explore ways to increase the volume of flood storage in order to maximize the long term flood mitigation efforts within the subwatershed, as discussed in this review. G:\Developments - Private\Liberty Crossing\Memos\Liberty_PrelimPUD_Review_040615.docx 2. The Developer must address the site plan comments regarding vehicle access and pedestrian facilities contained in this review. 3. The Developer must address the comments regarding the site survey and preliminary plat contained in this review. 4. This PUD is adjacent to County Highways 156 (Winnetka Avenue) and 70 (Medicine Lake Road) and therefore, the plans must also be submitted to Hennepin County for review and comment. 5. The Developer must address the comments regarding the utility plan as discussed in this review. 6. All sanitary sewer mains and services must be inspected and found to be compliant with the City's 1/1 ordinance, prior to occupancy of the buildings. 7. The Developer must address the comments regarding the preliminary stormwater management plan, as discussed in this review. 8. The Developer must include all proposed landscaping on the final tree preservation and landscape plan, consistent with the City's minimum landscape standards. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, Fire Chief, other City staff, and other governmental entities. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor RJ Kakach, Engineer Eric Seaburg, Engineer Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician G:\Developments - Private\Liberty Crossing\Memos\Liberty_PrelimPUD_Review_040615.docx Medicine Lake Road Medicine Lake Road -------------------- car ---------------- car repair -DaiFy r e� car rep it D2 ! QuelE VFW ;z , ~Qu In ; --------------- ---------- - , ------------------- N , > t ; algreens , , Q. -- - E ---------- --- ----------i .car wash E ,Asian Rei taurant m , ------------ , c ; a> • c . ,_J �� E SIFCO building y �' ----------------- , I ft I I TIN I'll I I VIM IIA I Z:2e g 1.1 ■—MeI Mal { 1!!■:1town—go� Iii! ,eti�1 , ' �I:�1 , Nsi' , �+ I ' •®' �.;,+t , � , :ll'�Rp �70'1 •;,91"Rl.k _ 1 q 1®® 1.• li�l ®® 1�:1 lul till i.l giIil ■v !'R-4!2 ;,V `""T i?r71'��.' Eiji' Inl Cil Iil 1;2l iR r ■ _ — _ - 1 1 ■ ' ®�� _, dere , , IIII I _. — _ _— r I =_, .7 , Inl , ' (■��) I-% . ■ li■1 li�l RA[�t' RFS .._ >_�.� : -_,. T i'in mml t�llsr r,.s ��,1 ■■ �1 nl _ .. ���■ Liberty Crossing 3.31.2015 u ,r�er'r� it r; .rr"4; 1 � c lul li�l 174 ��rl 1..1 �nl �� W uml lirl � ���hp ;AIS 11 ■ If �� Iri Inl I�il, LJ ■ Inl Ind �..... n lr4. "' SNI _ �Irrl rrl ' Md ��,! A11t'2► 4 rrr m a , !k711A ■=cllYa N � �a a ■ 'I _ _ �! I,r,�a■ 11 '. . ' '� s Ilrl -1n1 71 7. _ Rmm ' - ;• '' .,. k' 1 � -.. , � =t, �Q Liberty Crossing 3.31.2015 is Cal, to \ ` fill Mir I 1 ..': II it , ; Z M2 loom Jim US "'I r X �1� �. ��=I11� _ � !.e -n 11) i sill ! 4r� ��>, Inl OR -. 0 Z M2 loom § 11.24 Section 11.24: High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) is to provide for high density housing (over twelve (12) units per acre) along with directly related and complimentary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the R-4 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.24, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.24 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-4 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses The following uses and no others shall be permitted in the R-4 Zoning District: A. Multiple -family dwellings B. Senior and Physical Disability Housing C. Foster Family Homes D. Essential Services, Class I and II E. No more than one (1) kitchen area shall be permitted in each dwelling unit. Subdivision 4. Accessory Structures The following accessory structures and no others shall be permitted in R-4 Zoning Districts: A. Enclosed parking structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure B. Storage structures similar in construction and material to the principal structure, not exceeding five hundred (500) square feet or ten (10) feet in height. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-4 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 3 § 11.24 C. Underground parking structures D. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis courts. Subdivision S. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving twenty-five (25) or more persons B. Group Foster Homes Source: Ordinance No. 373, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 C. Principal structures in excess of five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet in height. Source: Ordinance No. 444, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-13-10 D. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing twenty (20) or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales, establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-4 Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of one hundred fifty (150) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision S. Easements No structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Buildings and Impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than forty-five percent (45%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures - Multiple -Family Multiple -Family Dwellings in R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 3 § 11.24 A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-4 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty- five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be forty (40) feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet. Subdivision 11. Enclosed Parking Structures and other Accessory Uses Enclosed parking structures and accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District: 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty- five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear yard setback for enclosed parking structures shall be forty (40) feet when abutting an R-1 Zoning District and twenty (20) feet in all other instances. The required minimum side and rear setback for other accessory uses shall be fifteen (15) feet. B. Location. No enclosed parking structure or accessory use shall be located closer to the front property line than the principal structure or within ten (10) feet of the principal structure. Subdivision 12. Parking Space Reduction Applicants providing sidewalks on all street frontages may pursue the following non -enclosed parking space reduction: A. Underground parking. The provision of one (1) stall of underground parking per unit shall result in a ten percent (10%) reduction in the number of required non -enclosed parking spaces. B. Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route available within one thousand (1,000) feet of the primary entrance accessed by a public sidewalk shall result in a ten percent (10%) reduction in the number of required non - enclosed parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 373, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 3 +.j IZ is Iz P4 F 1 � F-1 46Fi e=+ N ° O s` Fr e S ,45 to C1 001 N DDEIN 1010 SI10ddflNNIN] go AIIJ Alm C a x Sl` V -.. 11WISNIS902I 10 ,k.LIJ 70 v � R,P -IVLS.kNJ10,[.Ll' Ih�m m , Jn : xwaeexx L V: r 'l 0 O 7 F —U C d O x ■m z o O r F V N It 10dtldNNIW 10 .k.LIJ O 1R �` } K q' ]� O SI10dtl3NNINI 30 i.LIJ i—A i? SII Z 0 ca u W atla SLIIo1 as 10 ACID 'CrJ xF.F RN o c E SITE AND BUILDING INFORMATION I 1 II I I ' SIZE PERCENTAGE OF SITE NOTES TOTAL SITE AREA 413)33 SO. FT CUL-DE-SAC BY II'IPERAMI 798,491 6Q FT. 631* PARCM'a 33,908 SQ FT. MGL. TOUWId'E DRIVEW4Y8 INTERIOR STREETS 1 19,102 SQ FT. APARTMENT I I" UNITS PERVIOUS 1 114,136 SQ FT. 36.9* I -STORY BUILOM SIZE PERCENTAGE OF FLOORS BUILDING APARTMENT FOOTPRINTS 40010 SQ FT. TCNHO"S BSMT . 8 FLOORS CLUBHOUSE SAM SQ FT. I FLOOR TOLLrYl0USE8 6 6600 SQ FT. 341 UNTTS 2 FLOORS TOUNHOUSES 4 4400 SQ Fr. 2 FLOORS TOU4N0USES 3 3,640 SQ FT. ' I FLOOR TOUN40LISES I • 3,660 SQ FT. I FLOOR TOUN40LISES I • 2,440 SQ FT. I I FLOOR TOTAL 20140 SQ FT. 28A* SITE LIGHTING PARKING INFORMATION SITE STALL COUNT LOCATION NOTES DWELLING UNIT INFORMATION I 1 II I I ' I I I I I 1 I I1 LJ NORTH 0 NEW CUL-DE-SAC BY LOCATION WIT COWT (I APARTMENT I I" UNITS I -STORY iOUNHOU8E8 63 UNfTS TCNHO"S ' TOTAL 341 UNTTS 1-8N TOW ' I 9 SITE LIGHTING SYMBOL STYLE POLE 4EIGHT LOCATION ra14NTITY MANUFACTURER FIXTURE •A POLE Lr*n w INTERIOR STREETS n MCGRAIU-,E GALLEON LED 43 POLE LK 24' PARUNG LOT 3 MCGRAIU-EDISDN GALLEON LED •C DECORATIVE 0' MAN WRNETKA 6 AMFLUX DC216 LED POLE L614T ENTRY STREET RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NORTH (STREET TO BE MODIFIED OR ELIMINATED, BY THE CITY) MF ILL EXISTING /._.--.____.—.__________________.-�_�-0p{ypWpY{NTR� .___________________�1 DRIVEu14Y ENTRY EXISTMG DAIRY OMEN I 1 II I I ' I I I I I 1 I I1 LJ ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1'. 40'.0• EXISTING WALGREEN9 T 45' TURN RADWS,—O _20'-YADE. TYP. WILL EXISTNG J MODIFY EXURNGJ DRIVE"Y ENTRY DRIVEWAY ENTRY WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH OF INDERCiRO1Nb PAPoCMG •, a preliminary PUD appl. 3.12.15 d NORTH 0 NEW CUL-DE-SAC BY TE CITY (I _I? I -STORY TCNHO"S ' 1-8N TOW ' I 9 I I I -STORY T004ia SEs I • \ I -STORY I I l \I TOUNWCLBE8 I I o II I �I I -STORY TOUNHOU TES I \ II m NEW DRVEMY� ENTRY �ic ; MAR 12 2015 t n k 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-6225 F:612-879-8152 w Janek.com pra)ac Liberty Crossing Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Ave. N. Golden Valley, MN � ger Intuitive Investments, LLC MN dW engineer Rehderand Associates 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 Eagan, MN 55122 (651)452-5051 ,p 4repodw1, epIldby— u e yd'rectw dt-I am a d ly !­d­ftfth t icer ine laws o(M1. 'ale pf M�sola. ame dare license num N9n scale 1" = 40'-0" nam ns/er preliminary PUD appl. 3.12.15 architectural site plan NORTH 2� ! AO 10 opyd9nl T—k 2015 id 7 s s ,•-w,- M GRADING NOTES -1 - All elevations shown are to final surfaces. 21 - Contractor is responsible for obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity before construction begins. EROSION CONTROL NOTES Contractor is responsible for all notifications and inspections required by General Storm Water Permit. 02 - All erosion control measures shown shall be installed prior to grading operations and maintained until of) areas disturbed have been restored. O7 - Sweep paved public streets as necessary where construction sediment has been deposited. 04 - Each area disturbed by construction shall be restored per the specifications within 7 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. 05 - Temporary soil stockpiles must have silt fence around them and cannot be placed in surface waters, including storm water conveyances such as curb and gutter systems, or conduits and ditches. ©- All pipe outlets must be provided with temporary or permanent energy dissipation within 24 hours of connection to a surface water. ' 0 - Excess concrete/water from concrete trucks shall be disposed of in portable washout concrete basin or disposed of in a contained area. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LEGEND - The site must be inspected once every seven (7) days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. PROPOSED CB/MANHOLE BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE - All inspections and maintenance conducted must be recorded in writing and records retained with the SWPPP. PROPOSED CATCH BASIN - - - - - EASEMENT - Areas of the site that have undergone final stabilization, may have the inspection of these areas reduced to once per month. PROPOSED HYDRANT ------------- LOT LINE - All silt fence must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented within 24 hours when they become nonfunctional PROPOSED GATE VALVE - BUILDING/PARKING SETBACK UNE or the sediment reaches 1/3 of the height of the fence. - Temporary and permanent sedimentation basins must be drained and the sediment removed when the depth / PROPOSED FLARED END w— EXISTING WATERMAIN 0 20 40 Bo 120 of the sediment reaches 1/2 the storage volume. Removal must be completed within 72 hours of discovery. —i►— PROPOSED STORM SEWER s EXISTING SANITARY SEWER Scale in Feet - Surface waters and conveyance systems must be inspected for evidence of sediment being deposited. Removal —� DRAINAGE ARROW —ST— EXISTING STORM SEWER and stabilization must take place within seven (7) days of discovery unless precluded by legal, regulatory, or Physical access constraints. PROPOSED CONCRETE— G — EXISTING BURIED GAS LINE - Construction site vehicle exit locations must have sediment removed from off-site paved surfaces within 0 PROPOSED STD. DUTY BITUMINOUS — E — EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC LINE 24 hours of discovery. -4250-- PROPOSED CONTOUR — T — EXISTING BURIED TELEPHONE LINE POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT 11� PROPOSED ELEVATION —sea— EXISTING CONTOUR Boundary & Topographical information was prepared by Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc. This information has not - All solid waste must be disposed of off-site per the MPCA disposal requirements. -----D—SILT FENCE . 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION been verified as to its accuracy or completeness by - All hazardous waste must be properly stored with restricted access to storage areas to prevent vandalism.Render & Associates, Inc. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be in compliance with MPCA Regulations. INLET PROTECTION DEVICE E e�j Z J Z J Q L L J C) V V O Z Z Or—W ti O O � C) O W U C1 9MO7SOfSLZ 31LJ 9NIMVHO ZSOTSLZ-LYl :'ON 133POHd 'ON '50N ejDQ aw �! HT�l H1 y�j .l3llb'� N34100 30 .1110 m Z N SZ'LO606 vvapya a d . 15o5-aSt-Iss wab195 W'u . L. 3!3 os -u eiDsauwyt'usdeg. olt al!nS 'anu�lsaapa,; opyr oti ai!nS' saoi&tungpuD7PuasiauuD1d'simOugI!s?j D iS s4) {D 6MDI i4l Al3 }D�d Pasuaoll F�nP D w° ((I� puF ONISS080 Ai63811 Nand unun (� si-zi-r w1urms and sl-zz-L lYl Wn5 and �uj sa�na�oss� �ap2(a�j panssl s�asw if' a°dad sDM uDddsslloalp Q P I 41 W41 /1� 4 4 I y oy vru n ;Eo ocm ��� '" 'Ow Nr rN13NNw ODfl S53LODr ,(1N3dOXd W D = JNI S3LLN3dodd aDYbYElS JltBMtl3KM0 A1xadONd , T C N 6oV W a I Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl 00'[06 = 3d3 00'80 = 3J! 00'0{6 = 3if 00'Zl6 -333 00'll6 = m°waK Y 0 HL H1 H1 HT�l H1 OS'LO6 = 3J1 SZ'LO606 3!3 aVO?! 3Hd7 3NIDIO3PV o M APPROVED MnDOT SILT FENCE FABRIC FASTEN TO STMES 2' O.C. OPENING FOR LARGE EVENTS PERFORATED WALL T SILT FABRIC TO BE ED WRAPPED MOUND y SCB If NEEDED 1 CATCH BASJN TOP NEW CROSS SECTION NEW NOTE: USE THIS TYPE OF INLET PROTECTION BEFORE THE CASTING IS INSTALLED. INLET TION SILT FENCE Z ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3 INFRASAFE ORCEQUAL C Z NO SCALE C3 NO SCALE C3 NO SCALE Note: WNero -t- indicate, III— 0.75/it slope iatlicoletl above and match odjoining pavement abp, to prevent gutter I— 'ponding'. FINISHED GRADE TOOLED CONTROL JOINT UNLESS NOTED APPROVED JOINT SEALANT- CONCRETE EALANT- CONCRETE27 3:85 — 3/4 CHAMFER 4- - SMD BASE COMPACTED SUBCRADE 1/2' PRE -FORMED EXPANSION JOIM 30' OC MAXIMUM OR AS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS. ALSO INSTALL WHERE WALK ABUTS FIXED OBIECTS. .A .112 1 t 24 2 30 4.1 33 50 36 42 1 48 54 5 15 '37 (ONE CUBIC YARD IS APPROXIMATELY 2.800 LBS.) CLASS II RIPPAP BQ 1GRANULAR FILTER REOUIRED UNDER RIP RAP OR ONE LAYER OF 70OX M' RAFT FABRIC OR EOUAL \ `GRANUUR FILTER (MNDOT J601.IF3) SECTION A-AA-A _GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE III qbw PMTS NOTE: USE THIS TYPE OF INLET PROTECTION AFTER THE CASTING IS INSTALLED. INLET PROTECTION NO SCALE dill 3 RIP RAP 1/4- X I- FIAT BAR DE 4-1//Y SS ANCNOR (ROLLED 70 PROVIDE 60LTS W/ CUPS OUTER RING) r 1 /5 SMOOTH BAR I W�.T 4' O.C. EACH /W/AY (PROVIDES J-1/4' OPENRJG) CRATE N 2 SECTIONS ED 5 OUTLET PIPE - 17 ---- - 5 6612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 6 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 7 RIPRAP DETAIL 8 BASIN OVERFLOW 9 CONTROL STRCUTURE C Z NO SCALE C3 NO SCALE J C3 NO SCALE C3 NO SCALE C3 NO SCALE PROPOSED MAFIMENT 9UILDIN 19' 10 43' 15' 13' FEE CONCRETE WAIX 21' OF MTER MEON SOD 907.0— ]OX LISW CONSR8ICDON SAND DNSHiO Y-6/ASTM C-3.1) _ SOX ORGVIK: LEAF COMPOST (MNOOT ORAOE 1) 1' MN. COVER OVER STORAGE TANX – _ fABRIC - I Illi, 900.0 �9O UNDERGROUND TANK - --89I.33 .SII 8B].0 _ .....ill PROPOSED � WAlER NNN }_ – I AAAA I _L�:1 8' SLOTTED SINGLE WALL HOPE WIM L– CIRCULM KNIT POLYMERIC F—ENT FILTER SOLK ASTM 06]0] -DI. PER �I�� COARSE FILTER AGGREGITE ]119.21 UII�� II (MNDO3)33 PPE I SEWN SERV NON -WOVEN FABRIC SHALL NOT BE USED) NO SCALE n� o E `Eo U J Z N 0— C) W V)U-i J O W LL1 O m J U C3 OMO'ZSO£SlZ 31L1 ONIMYSO Z90'MZ-1t1 :ON 103fO8d 'oN 6a1j aw go z m OS'L06 - 3!u 9Z'LO6 wa�'lapgaYliv ewa . L6Lfi-34'b'I49 :xe3 .1405-35'6-149 a�o0 , - 3!d X31WA N30100 30 .1110 z t 33149 a losauu�y6j'ue•leg . of I al�n$'anu(I �eaapa3 pp65• uvljwazaC u1gpaezj yQs u 3o I ;oo �d pasuo xoa np Ewuapn,o.awo ONISS060 .183811saounspuv W= () W.WMBM and (� WIDMOnS and auI-1puvwu salva?0ssY wadn,np Xq pajodaid —, uvld slyj joy; C;INa3 Xq..4 I ponssl Nbld N011bA3S38d 3381 y C(OB-LL-IZ-81t-5Z :tl38rv�N l3Jdvd ON 3•IY YN!]NNM OefZ Sa3d'OOY Alb3dOtld Z O F- a go z �a OS'L06 - 3!u 9Z'LO6 - 3!d 00'[06 - 3!d U (� a F 09106 - 33! SZ'406 333 00'[06 = 3di R g= as- V Hl Hl H1' , Hl Hl Hln M � Q 2 LL s �Wc a $ GV0H 3MV7 3NI0103N XX . �_ Z O F- a go z �a M U W RE Luminaire Schedule LumNo Symbol oty Label Arrangement Total Lamp Lumens LLF Description Lum. Watts EEI 16 A SINGLE N.A. 0.900 MCGRAW GLEON-AE-02-LED-EI-SL3 MOUNT AT 16FT, 10500 LUMENS 107 Q 1 Al SINGLE N.A. 0.900 MCGRAW GLEON-AE-03-LED-EI-SL4 MOUNT AT 16FT 14886 LUMENS 157 �] 2 B1 SINGLE N.A. 0.900 MCGRAW GLEON-AE-06-LED-EI-SL4 MOUNT AT 24FT, 29163 LUMENS 315 5.60 1 B3 SINGLE N.A. 0.900 MCGRAW GLEON-AE-06-LED-El-SL3 MOUNT AT 24FT 30693 LUMENS 315 ® 6 C SINGLE 4580 0.900 AMERLUX DC216/HLE-T4-4VL MOUNT AT 18FT 4546 LUMENS 58 Calculation Summary LumNo Label Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min PROPERTY LINE Illuminance Fc 0.05 0.7 0.0 N.A. N.A. SITE GROUND Illuminance Fc 1.69 10.8 0.0 N.A. N.A. ENTRY ROAD Illuminance Fc 1.45 2.8 0.5 2.90 5.60 LEFT ROADWAY Illuminance Fc 1.97 4.9 0.4 4.93 12.25 PARKING LOT Illuminance Fc 2.37 6.1 0.5 4.74 12.20 RIGHT ROADWAY Illuminance I Fc 12.47 18.9 0.5 4.94 17.80 Luminaire Location Summary LumNo Label X Y Z Orient Tilt 24 A -1024.9 283.8 16 270 0 25 A -918.7 284.2 16 270 0 26 A -815.2 283.5 16 270 0 27 A -702.6 282.6 16 270 0 28 A -885.4 461.8 16 90 0 29 Al -595.8 248.6 16 236.993 0 30 A -529 231.8 16 270 0 35 A -129.2 367.3 16 0 0 36 A -130.3 453.7 16 1 0 0 37 A -130.8 280.2 16 0 0 38 A -131.2 193.9 16 0 0 39 A -186.1 232.9 16 270 0 40 A -284.9 232.9 16 270 0 44 A -131.1 114.3 16 0 0 48 A -130.6 43.8 16 0 0 49 C -331.7 24.9 16 180 0 52 C -368.2 68.7 16 0 0 53 C -331.3 117 16 180 0 54 C -368.7 159 16 0 0 55 C -368.3 248 16 0 0 56 C -331.9 191.5 16 180 0 57 A -618.1 152.5 16 180 0 58 B1 -389.4 293.1 24 0 0 59 B1 -425.1 292.9 24180.327 0 61 63 -412.1 351.6 24 90 0 62 A -419.3 232.5 16 270 1 0 GENERAL NOTES A. PULSE PRODUCTS DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CALCULATION OR COMPLAINCE TO THE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES. B'LIGHTING LAYOUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BUT ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT. C. ALL READINGS/CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE SHOWN ON OBJECTS/SURFACES. Plan View Scale: 1 inch= 60 Ft. PAGE 1 OF 1 I v MAR 12 2015 BY j U MAR . j 12 ALkd.�' cn E mm� 0 c- 0 4—j mul'IT 19 Liberty Crossing housing elevation examples 3.12.2015 ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY FOR: Intuitive Investments, LLC LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The West 374 f"t of the North 205 feet of IN, -11 860 feet of Ih. N -11t Quarter of Ne Northwest Q.- of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, except Ne Wast 33 feat th-f, accading to the Un Rad stat" G.WH - Savvy thereat Hmnpin County, Minnesota. Together with an .. -t for Inose and age's ova the ldlowing described properly. The NorM 30 feet of Na NorIM1 655 feet of the South 860 f"t of that part of the Northwest Wats of the Nalhwesl 011rtw of Ssctim 29, Township 118. Range 21, IyKq West or the E"t 704 f"t thereof, -t Ns Wsal 374 I"t V the North 205 feel of No swN 880 f"t If Ne Narthw"t OK.- of Ne N -h-1 W.rl.r of Section 29, Townriip 118, RMge 21, .a - M deed Document Na 2476007; And togethv wbh an casement fa privets roadway as eNtlencetl by DKIATT- No. 1287516. Being R"letaretl land a' le aNtlenced by Ce rtiRcate of Title No. 1305335. iPbr C ...v C_ m dd Tt. 0 60643) Lot 1, ^Block 1. NCTac Addition, accadin to the --d plat N -f. Hennepin County, Minnsota. 9 rm Being Registered land as . eNdmcad by Certificate of TIN, N. 689295. (Par Goma tv C_ merc'n THe ne RIP Na- SO-) Lot 1, '- 1. Goldin vdley NTW Poat Number 7051. according bo the r,.,,d.d plat thereof, Hennp;n Cwnty, - -- Being Registered land " i- PA -d by Cerlificale of Title No. 1325613 Lol 2. Block 1, McT.. Addil.....catling to Ne recadetl dot th-1. Hennepin County, Kinn"oto. Bdng Registered I.Nd as le evidenced by CM16cota of Title N, 1230694. REVISIONS JOB NO. 36223 FILE NO. 1113 NOTES: 1. The onmt,Uw of thio bearing system is based on Ne Hmnpm Cwnty coordinate grid (NAD 83-96 Ad}). 2. The total area of Ne property dsaabed herein is 473.209 square feel IT 10.8634 aa". 3. The legd description a d e"_ent information used in Ne preparation of this -yt veva based n the Commitment- fa Ttle Inwranca issued by W PNty Commacid Title. Inc., as aymt fa Old Rp bli� Notional Title Inwranea Company. PA. No. 60635. having on effective dote of August 12, 2014: File W. 60642. xavin9 m affective dole of August 26. 2014: Fle No. 60684. having an effective date of SApt.mber 9, 2014; and TOP No. 60684. having an effective dale of February 4, 2015. 4. No zoning report w leliv wa' r"eivetl frau the Inwry p.rw.nt to Opt- TaNe A. Ilam 6(b), " eel forty M Ne 2011 Minimum Standartl Detail Rpuiramonls fa ALTA/ACSM LPKd Title S,,- 5, The Propertm y III- ed M1 lira within FT -Zane x (are" detvmined to be outside Ne 0.21E. -PA chance 6Pod plain) pa F.- Insurance Rate Map No. 27053 C 0194 E. dated Splembv 2. 20W. 8 Existing utilities, aervic s and untler�round sWetur" sxawn x veva located inter pM1Nicdlµ fro^ xiatin9 roc am made P--. -. to us, by -idml t"time by locotima provided by Gpner State One Call, per Ticket No. 142690433: 142690469: 162690625: and 150770072. Howevv, lacking excavation. the exact lac - of undmgreund feat.." cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where odditimol «more delailetl infortnatim is r .wPd, the dicot is advised that ac awlion may be Other utIII- and sans may be prnm,KA venficatim antl location of dl utilities and sae es should be obtoNetl Irons the own_ of the respective uN 1- prior to any design, planning a excawtion. 7. As of the dale of thio survey Ne properly d"gibed M1aeon -t ­A total of 320 visibly stryetl parking -- of which 308 are slandatl spaces, antl 12 ore tlesignated hmdkap spat". L^ As of the date of Chia y there ie o -IIP eridmce of ".rent earth moving ..,k. building ca .-K. a b0d.g i- on the property dIs INKI hereon. B. A. of the date of this --yantl accordin9 to Ne. e City of `I= Valley -t nor 'n matim was aw9abls regarding ca plated a proposed ch ____in A -t right-of-way lines. A- of Ned. .crAed hmeanrvey Nvaf is n. observable evitlence of Tecmahset a sidewalk con _tim a --that affect the property de 10. A- of Ne date of Nis wrwy Nero is no observable evidence Nat Ne property dewibed hereon is being used as . -did waste dump, sump w sanitary Iondfili. 11. Adjacent pmpvby om_, ad-.- end pared numb_ cave obtained from Ne -AA,in County Property Infamalim Web -its. 12. BENCHMARK: MIRK -to Departs,Rt of Tron"atatbn Ccnlfd MPN-t'STRASSBURG MNDT*. ,-tion 923.73 het (14- 88). ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY SURVEY FOR: VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE INTUITIVE INVESTMENTS, LLC i N 0 40 80 120 SCALE IN FEET Q M MENT N CWV s FW D CAST IRON e FOUND IRON MONUMENT O HI IRON MONUMENT MARKED HIM LICENSE NUMBER 44I23 ITEMS PER SCHEDULE B: I T EN, NI.5 N 1 r"tover the N.Ma 33 feet m a leas as Mwwn on -Id" e cop. The eassmmt fm street po es rs shown m roan . TIPPI is an exception to lE, property antl Ie 'Wp l on the wrwy. and c.nditlms o1 DHwte readwoY eawment ore -,Rd by D°amant No. 1281516. The pnwte of tivoY ensemenl conlainetl R, add document affscls Ne Property and is Oepidetl m Ne survey. 1 IT, Na 60840 Nity entl drainage a ent(a) ovv Dorl of wbject p•emkaa " ah"n on the "carded P1al of Ma. idian. The ,tlrnin ge v� uUlily easemmis detlicaletl in so;d plat, wxich affect th. property, are ,p;ctetl vn the srvey. n p41c Imnami"ilP, INA, mentt(No. o718591rt If the .6i -ttenpNAPP-n1, wf of documan stat" P the o dRy. " ra name pffea pperty and iie.pt-d m the wrwy. ent fa c4"t rood ane .tufty over Roods Intend Avenue N. adjdning wbfpt pnmlwe as AGe... by DIP -t No. 9835`5. T es rersrmcad in said tivcumenl is embracetl w;tnin Ne Iht-of-way of Th -Island Avenue North. s dedicated in NCTAC ADDITION, end is not tlepicled IN a a. wy piric tran_,R,on II^e ""menl(a) part W "Matt premia" in f°wr of Northam Slat" Power �cumoent. awh�h a id es DlM1ewpr t Nyoslrtl5IX15eed m lhanauf th, e... -1 referenced in said I.C41C tf.nemiadan lino "aemenl(-) port or wb).t premia" in fpwr Pf N°rlhwn Slat" Power ompany. ° voted in DO NNTt No. 1{3158& A Dation of tM1e easement .efvenced in said ocument, whM1 affects th. property, iz tlepicted m lM1e survey Pte FRe Nn 806841 Nlt p wq dmMa" nenl(a) war °ort of -)enl pr. "shaven " tM reweetl pat et Gdeen vel" M " amber l0.'ll. the drmnage ane nw�lr easemmis dea¢nled m sola plat. wnicx IN- the Ipertr. o e dmmted on N. tflllmY one eralnO9w•"•^•^l(a)� Port wbjed plamlaw show^ m tine rf -Id pot °f Ter° Lind° m oa Dd uan9 cpl.d by D sementsNaedo 3265) s e z0g1481. u0m r acnlea nue um.fn. not Mp ea on team..bfont. am -AN K. ".emanl(s) osv part of wbfvt premia" In laver of Natnem stet" Powe y ermen<ea m aeo - - Dowmenlallo. 1098151 " perUaNMsa"d bytDxument No. 1995991. The vasemmts iM"dk sdasnenl(a) ownpat of b bjrct pranlsw " Mdenttd by DIPAR-tLNR. 1161964. Thal p ea sn seri dacumen em .a w. ,n the n9nl-of- y Sana a od and is ne waY aovement(a) esu pmt mpinFa aubM Pre^rlwe " MMCMdb:Oacumenlign aor-1BAf4 'Nnrn903 1 J19M. m en are em race ln,n In lvmue NP -N1 and ore not dap.fled m Ne -y munkatime system eas-d.) over part of 'Ales Dmmla" F laver of %R- IR NPR Bell Ta"- ,anpeny, a cs"tetl in Dowment No. 1923821. The ea emenl relmenced in said document affects the 1raPerty antl G depicted on the -- PKI 94"1 PKI dtVBY 7.t(A) ov. pal .I ni Kb1.,t as^+" a. INI.�am by -t M.(a}n2z`4561. Road and .s not asp .ted on Ne suresµ aNe le p aementa contained furan naw e p ed e Raelfklbna cosenanta conElttans and -b, PmNMed H Auer" E-A r -t xd- Mach 24, 2011, Rktl Medi 2S, 2W, w No 4944691. iM1e easement refermcetl ,n ..Td document of acts IM1e property ane is depkfea OnnwMemtsurver. Tile. FN, N1. 61213) UtflityK d drainage a ent(a) over vert or wbject prem)"a .e shown plthe recorded plot of MaTac Adan . me aro age ntdity in easemmte deamatea said pt. w i h a eel lh. p op y depicted on Ne s.rvP, 9tr"S rood end utllly easement idlNq w " adj-g RhaM NA d Aw N " eNdenwd by Document A, 963516 " wnalallmd m _ C.Uswbe of TIB- ref.enced In sold dowmmt are --d wtlln IEe 9 -o- Y Rbade Ilan Avenue NarN ems Ira net tle&N,d on Ne survey. Terme and pndltione of privets madwaY "aeme^t a- eNdencad by Document No. 1287518. The pirate roadway easement contained in add document affects the property antl is depicted on the survey. s.. LEGEND: .. 0 9TORMANITBH RANOLE p AA"- ®ae CATW BASIN P TOSPRINKLER ® TIONER m ELMIRICC MANKO m ELECTRIC B" ® HANDHIAf uGK> a TM U I DC m BOx Q GABS METER RAGPOLE SIGN P— HAN MCAdi PPm PARKING SPACE G SIGN. _LARG -x-sCOD"F'NGE -e-.-e- IOW FENCE weft (FGRGE.A.) - Nr SENER WA SEWED UNOEB.-D ELECTRK -.EAO aPE -r- UNDERGROUND TEl£PHWE DERGIO ND GAS SPOT KE SPOT E -TON �903� EwSRNG CMITWR LNE GR TBEE (DINAETER IN IN -S) CONCRETE SURFACE GRA- SURFACE BRICN PL)ERS CERTIFICATION: Intuitive Inwstmmts, LLC. v Minnesato I;mited liability company, Guaranty C. -d. Title, Inc.. antl ON! Republic N.11- TIR. Insurance Company SITEE This is to certify that this map a plat antl /h. survey on whits R ALTA/AGSM Land �x 2011 Minimum standard DetaA -1 --for ALTA NSPS, and ind.de' Items 1, 2. 3. 4, 6(b), 7(a), 7(bt). 8, 9. 11(b). 13, 16. 1] and 18 of Table A and thveof. The field wok w" can plated on MarcM1 19, 2015. - � Mwwsv k k Brent R PA- --t. License No. 44123 k MAR 3 0 1015 RV. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE INTUITIVE INVESTMENTS, LLC i N 0 40 80 120 SCALE IN FEET Q M MENT N CWV s FW D CAST IRON e FOUND IRON MONUMENT O HI IRON MONUMENT MARKED HIM LICENSE NUMBER 44I23 ITEMS PER SCHEDULE B: I T EN, NI.5 N 1 r"tover the N.Ma 33 feet m a leas as Mwwn on -Id" e cop. The eassmmt fm street po es rs shown m roan . TIPPI is an exception to lE, property antl Ie 'Wp l on the wrwy. and c.nditlms o1 DHwte readwoY eawment ore -,Rd by D°amant No. 1281516. The pnwte of tivoY ensemenl conlainetl R, add document affscls Ne Property and is Oepidetl m Ne survey. 1 IT, Na 60840 Nity entl drainage a ent(a) ovv Dorl of wbject p•emkaa " ah"n on the "carded P1al of Ma. idian. The ,tlrnin ge v� uUlily easemmis detlicaletl in so;d plat, wxich affect th. property, are ,p;ctetl vn the srvey. n p41c Imnami"ilP, INA, mentt(No. o718591rt If the .6i -ttenpNAPP-n1, wf of documan stat" P the o dRy. " ra name pffea pperty and iie.pt-d m the wrwy. ent fa c4"t rood ane .tufty over Roods Intend Avenue N. adjdning wbfpt pnmlwe as AGe... by DIP -t No. 9835`5. T es rersrmcad in said tivcumenl is embracetl w;tnin Ne Iht-of-way of Th -Island Avenue North. s dedicated in NCTAC ADDITION, end is not tlepicled IN a a. wy piric tran_,R,on II^e ""menl(a) part W "Matt premia" in f°wr of Northam Slat" Power �cumoent. awh�h a id es DlM1ewpr t Nyoslrtl5IX15eed m lhanauf th, e... -1 referenced in said I.C41C tf.nemiadan lino "aemenl(-) port or wb).t premia" in fpwr Pf N°rlhwn Slat" Power ompany. ° voted in DO NNTt No. 1{3158& A Dation of tM1e easement .efvenced in said ocument, whM1 affects th. property, iz tlepicted m lM1e survey Pte FRe Nn 806841 Nlt p wq dmMa" nenl(a) war °ort of -)enl pr. "shaven " tM reweetl pat et Gdeen vel" M " amber l0.'ll. the drmnage ane nw�lr easemmis dea¢nled m sola plat. wnicx IN- the Ipertr. o e dmmted on N. tflllmY one eralnO9w•"•^•^l(a)� Port wbjed plamlaw show^ m tine rf -Id pot °f Ter° Lind° m oa Dd uan9 cpl.d by D sementsNaedo 3265) s e z0g1481. u0m r acnlea nue um.fn. not Mp ea on team..bfont. am -AN K. ".emanl(s) osv part of wbfvt premia" In laver of Natnem stet" Powe y ermen<ea m aeo - - Dowmenlallo. 1098151 " perUaNMsa"d bytDxument No. 1995991. The vasemmts iM"dk sdasnenl(a) ownpat of b bjrct pranlsw " Mdenttd by DIPAR-tLNR. 1161964. Thal p ea sn seri dacumen em .a w. ,n the n9nl-of- y Sana a od and is ne waY aovement(a) esu pmt mpinFa aubM Pre^rlwe " MMCMdb:Oacumenlign aor-1BAf4 'Nnrn903 1 J19M. m en are em race ln,n In lvmue NP -N1 and ore not dap.fled m Ne -y munkatime system eas-d.) over part of 'Ales Dmmla" F laver of %R- IR NPR Bell Ta"- ,anpeny, a cs"tetl in Dowment No. 1923821. The ea emenl relmenced in said document affects the 1raPerty antl G depicted on the -- PKI 94"1 PKI dtVBY 7.t(A) ov. pal .I ni Kb1.,t as^+" a. INI.�am by -t M.(a}n2z`4561. Road and .s not asp .ted on Ne suresµ aNe le p aementa contained furan naw e p ed e Raelfklbna cosenanta conElttans and -b, PmNMed H Auer" E-A r -t xd- Mach 24, 2011, Rktl Medi 2S, 2W, w No 4944691. iM1e easement refermcetl ,n ..Td document of acts IM1e property ane is depkfea OnnwMemtsurver. Tile. FN, N1. 61213) UtflityK d drainage a ent(a) over vert or wbject prem)"a .e shown plthe recorded plot of MaTac Adan . me aro age ntdity in easemmte deamatea said pt. w i h a eel lh. p op y depicted on Ne s.rvP, 9tr"S rood end utllly easement idlNq w " adj-g RhaM NA d Aw N " eNdenwd by Document A, 963516 " wnalallmd m _ C.Uswbe of TIB- ref.enced In sold dowmmt are --d wtlln IEe 9 -o- Y Rbade Ilan Avenue NarN ems Ira net tle&N,d on Ne survey. Terme and pndltione of privets madwaY "aeme^t a- eNdencad by Document No. 1287518. The pirate roadway easement contained in add document affects the property antl is depicted on the survey. s.. LEGEND: .. 0 9TORMANITBH RANOLE p AA"- ®ae CATW BASIN P TOSPRINKLER ® TIONER m ELMIRICC MANKO m ELECTRIC B" ® HANDHIAf uGK> a TM U I DC m BOx Q GABS METER RAGPOLE SIGN P— HAN MCAdi PPm PARKING SPACE G SIGN. _LARG -x-sCOD"F'NGE -e-.-e- IOW FENCE weft (FGRGE.A.) - Nr SENER WA SEWED UNOEB.-D ELECTRK -.EAO aPE -r- UNDERGROUND TEl£PHWE DERGIO ND GAS SPOT KE SPOT E -TON �903� EwSRNG CMITWR LNE GR TBEE (DINAETER IN IN -S) CONCRETE SURFACE GRA- SURFACE BRICN PL)ERS CERTIFICATION: Intuitive Inwstmmts, LLC. v Minnesato I;mited liability company, Guaranty C. -d. Title, Inc.. antl ON! Republic N.11- TIR. Insurance Company This is to certify that this map a plat antl /h. survey on whits R ALTA/AGSM Land it is basetl ware made In accatlance wiN It. TNI. Sun pinny e'tabI-d and adwt1d by 2011 Minimum standard DetaA -1 --for ALTA NSPS, and ind.de' Items 1, 2. 3. 4, 6(b), 7(a), 7(bt). 8, 9. 11(b). 13, 16. 1] and 18 of Table A and thveof. The field wok w" can plated on MarcM1 19, 2015. Date of plat or MMPb March 25. 2015 Brent R PA- --t. License No. 44123 MAR 3 0 1015 RV. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7751 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD, 2430 & 2480 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 1229 Tyler Street NE. Suite 100 Minneopolls. Minnesota 55413 .� PMONE: (612) 466-3300 FAX:(612) 466-3383 Egan, field E Nowak, Inc. mPrn WWW'EFNSURVEY.COM ONT0 2015 By EGAN. MELD h N -K. I.G. lana surveyors sloes 1672 Preliminary Plat of. L1BERTY CROSSING �'� ` ` T,T *WnP •••T� -.. _.. .___ - L.aP rY EA.¢ldwr PEa wLIaL AOa __ e10'iaP1� . _ war $MY]M WIEMY➢MP IM'I.R 5 � mill ii r ' '�� Ow T°� 1 \\',PPPF �5'MPss _ ii'ir� i•ii_:ii•.• w w w -__w Sof w w - C(60 FOOT IMOE PUBLIC RICHT-Pr-WAY) e�W Nw, xa•FvE 5 ���/ r ---Tw / p9 arWE uws) w w� °/,� S44 4T��� \ - 1062,32 �• °-°-_ _ -- � ���-1---_ </ I'I AREAS LOT SQUARE FEET nwwdr°Na !�aa.an I au \ 1. 1 Iw y Hie': y a _,°.00 671 `-r �TsE/w�,i n" •.,,f.,.wa,°rNaW�, ~I \rs-rI" I •II I 2,278 s 67 2 6o 3 08 a e isor2 13 s24 ®II w II `hI '% / , i/2"pr1`•�',,iN�� ' j ryN. 66��`SJ/ I r°Na y r aN- '."7 a r�� g I "7r6I6 2,, 278 IA - 7 2,278 \ /8�N/I III 9 1,660080 0 67 61 - 6 10 1,608 22 el 14 1 1,608 3 (1yr • L `'� / m 2 278 / 9 r. �•/ ' w,+,)67 13 2. 2678 %PO x 21 14 1.608 64 11 15 1,608 6 �LOT 6 f 16 1,608 08 18 2.2782D 4 tit N / �I•.` N . 0 N?N 8 N 1% -- .. H2C= ( _ srcv ;;h / 6{71: 67 , 67 / 67 �- i� \ ( -� s M..vO.weE-% \ zo 1,60 2,278 -- ` 3 / / / I ' \1 21 1,608 I` sroRM.,EBDICIi yM 3i I T4� .7751 MEDICINE "8 KE ROA ' .- .i /r r - I I 22 1,606 . l (FOO PRNj }REA = V4 4 SO. FT.) 67 67I I I I arse) a L9 Owner:23 1,608 I - �7 g uc o nr wsln. arc 1 /& I PUBLIC STORAGE 24 2 278 gg I L, :i �-W*03'25'W r 140.00 i Owner: 1 JOHN LOMMEN -� (MIDLAND DAIRY QUEEN) X904 € h b a� I OII E d Owner: JAMES NEUBERGER �w N Ok 6 8 - wo ww�& EG nom. ;rA i N�pp2 �2 00 gL=j 1 O O o - OW ER/DEVELOPER Todd Schachtman g Intuitive Investments / 5402 Parkdale Drive Suite 200 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 Phone: 612-817-2395 ARCHITECT Tarek, Inc. East 26th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 Phone: 612-879-8225 SURVE)'OR/ENGINEER Reinder & Associates, Inc. Suite 110 3440 Federal Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Phone: 651-452-5051 .',r;) I saw,/•. rs/:9P 'ra ccE r s w r�--� / / 47 I PROPERTIES, INC. 25 2,278 noxa -9a. Hoar -279. - L.If' I _i_ 26 1,608 / V r I $ • -�'' I 8 I I / / 1-2 STORY BRICK BUILDING k_ E•. 27 1,608 N0. 2430 81NNEIKA AVE. NO.2g 2,613 (FOOTPRINT AREA = 58365 S0. FT.) v 58 a .3 -' - 29 2,613 • ,"�` /�' ,. ''F I�\I I / // I ��r1 ` 30 1,608 •2 ^ I1 c Y+0 31 1,608 - -�-��/ _ :=-�i= _�� / ' • ', I I\ ° i 522 / 47 32 2,278 a 61 a33 2278 � 608 283.5 / / ' b7 \ I 35 1,608 N0902'56" E I 36 1,608 -2x� / I V & /37 1,608 is / 4 III $g 242 a 34,1 24 24 24 164 24 34 47 38 2,278 24 '4 39 `39 12 , 24 34 (I I i 39 2,278 41 40 1 608 .t E 42 1,608 Owner: 4� 32 0 ! ^m ^m 34� 35e YCA GOLDEN VALLEY LLC O' m 25 28 m 2% q Vp b ' 31 e ^ I / 36-. 37-. 38 /1I ? 43 1,608 Rp N d474J II bop 44 2,278 N �% 65 lr 8g ' hQ 45 2,27 r� 34 24 24 24 24 34 } y 46 1,608 W, 1: I 34 24 �4 .i 39 °m'= 4° 24 34 164 e n 55,( 8 I) 6 `c•1` U-0 1� 47 1,608 48 2,613 • R `F�O �$ 242 j I ranw 4 I? 7 - 49 2,613 47 so 1,60e .... . . . . .. . ... h b i * n 242 R 24 34 34 24 •aag4Ew 7-24-- r:Zg 34 I & I ] _ 51 1,608 p@p@rn 1 p 4' 2 1 / i• N 54 I N III 52 2,278 53 f nL / 1,253 40.; 39 / \ / - / I I( 54 1,253 - 'e 7 48� 4�6 a 44 a 43� 42e 41 I �q I) ss 1,653 ---- 52 51 50. 49�e./ 48 I� g / a _ N/ 47 a N / II 56 2,280 M" / 279 zeo \ p4 ° I 4 34 34 24 24 24 24 4- �) / \ 59 2,279 61 ri �, f9 24 �4 �9 ,�-----------�G4----------o�--F---/-%/--��/ -1 �� 60 2,280 __-- 61 2,279 'l - --- �,�--qp1=\ \--_ _ t / ® 62 1,653 63 160,229 .,.'1 W 0.00 \ \ "�` \\ 64 32,297 SO°02'1 W Adt .00 aos> WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH � " yf�xs cc jE P;- , I o // 1 74 (vAmAeLE wfB�TN Pu R cNr-a w�lil Q� O wa9 MESI LwF ei ae wwl/•, NWr%. 4E. n, IW, ma f. 1,-- �- - PROPERTY DESCRIPTION utnwwc urs f7 West 374 feet ofs the North 205 feet of the South 860 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter United Stales I hereby certify that this preliminary pia, was prepared by me or under my Minnesota. an Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, except the Wes[ 33 Feet [hereof, according to the that I am a duly Licensed F 0 20 40 eo 120 Govemment Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. this 8th day of April, 2015 $ oDa[etl r property: The North 30 feet of the for Ingress and egress over the following described prop �A sANoevRc roan 1 scale In Feet Together with an easement North 655 feet of the South 860 feet of that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, except the West 374 feet of the North 205 feet REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. '? 14 el Township 118, Range 21, lying West of the East 704 feet thereof, the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, NDS of the South 860 feet of the Northwest Quarter of TT - , 1`I based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System. as shown in deed Document No. 2476007; evidenced by Document No. 1287516. ��(� �1 ; Thomas I. Adam, Land Surveyor APR 7{ 2��� * Bearings shown are from survey provided And together with an easement for private roadway as (f Minnesota License No. 43414 VV *Topographic, easement and utility information shown taken and tIA Nil, S 5 by owner. * construction any nstruon shall begin. Contact Gopher State 1 for utility locations Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, McTac Addition, according to the recorded pia, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. x�t. Inc. Phone 651-454-0002. and Rehder an ciatese nnlolnN A9rNLF * Area: 473,292 square feet (10.87 acres). Lot 1, Block 1, Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, CIVIL AND LAND SURVEYORS �/� '/ * Existing Zoning: Commercial and Light Industrial. Minnesota. 3440 Fedarol Orive veENGINEERS Sr:ite 110 Eogan, Minnewta Ph-Ph(651) 452-5051 Ytcinl� MQP * Proposed Zoning: PUD. Section 29, Township 11$ Rarrge 21 JOB: 154-2153.054 No S -le Date: April 13, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing — Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map — 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road Background The area north of Highway 55 West between Highway 169 and Boone Avenue north is a unique area in Golden Valley that has generated interest from the real estate market for redevelopment. This area, shown on the attached map, is defined as the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area. Various developers have approached the City about the redevelopment opportunities for parcels located particularly along Golden Valley Road. Out of this interest, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to examine the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area and determine if the existing land use regulations are sufficient to support the Council's vision of the area as a mixed-use and pedestrian -friendly extension of the downtown. With vacancies at two adjacent commercial properties located at 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road, there was concern with Council that the potential for auto -oriented uses could prove to be detrimental to this vision. The Planning Commission discussed this topic in February and in general, the Commission felt that the commercial zoning on the two properties was appropriate, though they realized this meant that auto -oriented uses could be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. At the Council/Manager meeting on March 10, Council discussed an informal proposal for a high density senior residential building at 9000 Golden Valley Road for which a developer has a purchase agreement secured. The Council discussed their support for high-density residential at this property as well as at 9050 Golden Valley Road. Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow High Density Residential at these two properties. Even if this particular development proposal is not approved or completed, Council envisions high density residential uses for 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road. Population Growth To evaluate the need for an increase in the amount of land guided for housing in the community, Planning staff has referred to population forecast data provided by the Metropolitan Council in October 2014. According to the data (see attached), by 2040, the total number of households in Golden Valley is expected to increase by 17% from 8,816 households in 2010 to 10,300 households in 2040. The total population is expected to increase to 24,300 people by 2040. To accommodate this growth in population, the City must evaluate the appropriate measures to increase housing opportunities and identify the appropriate areas for growth. For example, the City of Minneapolis plans to accommodate growth by permitting "granny flats" or accessory dwelling units under a specific set of circumstances outlined in their Zoning Code. Many communities have amended comprehensive plans and zoning codes to allow higher density housing and mixed use developments along highly utilized transportation corridors. General Land Use Plan Map Amendment The properties at 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road are currently guided for Commercial use. Under the current proposal, the General Land Use Plan Map would be amended so that both properties would be guided as High Density Residential, which accommodates densities of 20 or more units per acre. Any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment must be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment. No approval for the proposed development at 9000 Golden Valley Road may be given by the City Council until they have heard from the Metropolitan Council regarding the amendment. The City may review the proposal as long as final action is not taken prior to Metropolitan Council review of the proposed amendment. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment re -designating 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to High Density Residential. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Highway 55 Redevelopment Area (1 page) Comprehensive Plan Table of Land Use Definitions (1 page) Metropolitan Council Thrive MSP 2040 Forecasts (4 pages) Email from Helen Liss dated April 9, 2015 (1 page) General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) 835 742 708 696 690 682 680 676 640 672• 730 668 670 • • • — -- 701 664 662 • 660 1048 658 +� 101 884(8836883=.88 16168186190 ti Subject Properties 103A�03102` £&36• • 8?,3� • • • • • • 622 628532834-,36 640 644 J,1$656 58 181 • • • • • • • ♦ • ♦ ^' • • 7 626 G30 638 642 646 850 04 209 2(205 20c 2A 121.55 12}dii 7 a 10. 010 12 '•"' 924012 -- - - 5„n 794 11 9140 $900 8845 • 9300 123 55 • 123455 9050 9000 9326 9370 701: r4 7 810112 0 12 9200 7 9,:.9210 9110 9,9110 600 • Golden Valley Rd _ 9325 9010 89.50 9100 • • • • \` 9300 9130 i.. • 9220 gtate HWY t4o 55' State rtwY Noy 55 emojlalliwY -- 439 —440— � Ol5Qn M 8951 8945 Z 433 f 9131 9031 433 432 C 423 ®101 � 424 r4l 4 9141 -0201 421 9147.3302306 I 6- - 11 1S0 1 1 F N OAVinieoe Z3 qqN %3 am 11 § kko AV UqCSSIOPU-a-y-y 11 JL- $A n, -- u I U" di CL Cb 0 1//1111 kko AV UqCSSIOPU-a-y-y 11 JL- City of Golden Valley "k, ' Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Table Definition Of -•• Residential, Low -Density Single-family detached homes are the predominant low-density residential use, with small clusters of (0.1 to 5 homes per gross two-family attached homes mixed in at scattered locations as appropriate. Other types of residential acre of land area) structures in planned unit developments (PUDs) may also be appropriate as long as the overall density of development falls within the acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is "single family." Residential, Medium- Medium -density residential uses include two-family attached homes in clusters of more than 10 units, or Density (from 5 to 11.99 townhomes, or other types of housing in PUDs where the average density of development falls within the homes per gross acre of land acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is part of "multi -family." area) Residential, Medium- Townhomes, apartment buildings, and condominiums are the permitted medium -high-density residential High -Density (12 to 19.9 uses. Other types of housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet homes per gross acre of land the minimum density threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of "multi -family." area) Residential, High- Apartment buildings and condominiums are the predominant high-density residential uses. Other types of Density (20 to 30 homes housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet the minimum density per gross acre of land area) threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of "multi -family." This limited use category features general office buildings. Medical or laboratory facilities where work is Commercial Office performed in a predominantly office setting are also acceptable uses. Office areas may include mixed-use office/ residential PUDs. Metro Council equivalent is part of "commercial." Commercial uses include retail sales/services, restaurants, hotels/motels, and for-profit entertainment/ Commercial Retail/ recreation facilities, as well as anything allowed in an office area. Mixed-use commercial/ residential Service PUDs are also a possibility. Metro Council equivalent is "commercial," except that does NOT classify any residential care facilities as commercial uses. This category includes warehousing and storage, assembly and light manufacturing, truck/van terminals, Light Industrial utility installations, offices, and large-scale specialty retail operations such as lumber yards, greenhous- es, and vehicle sales/rental lots. Metro Council equivalent is part of "industrial." Industrial This category includes anything that could go into a light industrial area, as well as railroad uses, animal care facilities, and heavy manufacturing. Metro Council equivalent is part of "industrial." This category includes a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and business -oriented land uses. Mixed Use This area was established to encourage a compact urban area that will serve as a gateway to the city. Transit -oriented development is expected to spur high-density development that is encouraged to include a mix of uses. Approximatley 25 percent of this area is expected to include residential development. Open Space (public and These uses include golf courses, ball fields, playgrounds, parks, nature areas, and storm water ponding private) areas. Metro Council equivalent is "parks and recreation," except the Metro Council does not specify ponding areas or nature areas. Schools and Religious These include education facilities at all levels, the cemetery, places of worship for all denominations, Facilities and miscellaneous religious installations. Metro Council equivalent is part of "public, semi-public." Public Facilities, Administrative or service installations (except those otherwise classified) at all levels of government fall Miscellaneous into this category. Metro Council equivalent is part of "public, semi-public." Semi -Public Facilities, Residential treatment or care facilities, hospitals and surgical centers, private clubs, and other not-for- Miscellaneous profit facilities (except those otherwise classified) fall into this category. Metro Council equivalent is part of "public, semi-public," except for residential treatment or care. Wetland Properties in this category are generally those listed in the National Wetland Inventory. By definition, all wet- land areas are considered to be "in use." Metro Council equivalent is "wetland development constraint." Floodplain This category includes all areas with a land elevation below the 100 -year flood level. By definition, all flood - way areas are considered to be "in use." Metro Council equivalent is "floodplain development constraint." Sweeney/Twin Lake, Wirth Lake, DNR unnamed basin #27-36 (in Wirth Park, along the creek north of Open Water Highway 55), and Bassett Creek are classified as open water areas. By definition, all open water is consid- ered to be "in use." Metro Council equivalent is "open water." This category includes all land reserved for street or highway uses and for certain transit facilities, Right -of -Way, Road whether by easement or by fee title. By definition, all such right-of-way is considered to be "in use." Metro Council equivalent is "roadways, option 2." Right -of -Way, Railroad This category includes all land reserved for railroad uses, whether by easement or by fee title. By defini- tion, all such right-of-way is considered to be "in use. There is no Metro Council equivalent. City of Golden Valley "k, ' Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Thrive 2040 MSP - Forecasts as of October 15, 2014 2040 forecasts were adopted May 28, 2014; 2020 and 2030 forecasts were adopted October 15, 2014. Forecasts are periodically revised through Council action; please check Council website to obtain the latest revisions. Forecast for Bloomington changed by Council action, June 11, 2014. 0 = Rogers annexed Hassan Township in 2012; Census counts are combined. (pt) denotes part of a city, remainder of city is in neighboring county. t = Laketown Township will be fully annexed before 2040; forecast has been reassigned to neighboring cities. Z& Ill RON)[ I IAS Population Households Employment 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 ANOKA COUNTY Andover 30,598 33,400 34,600 40,700 9,811 11,000 12,900 15,400 4,669 5,000 5,500 6,200 Anoka 17,142 19,100 19,600 20,100 7,060 7,900 8,600 8,900 12,840 14,400 14,500 14,600 Bethel 466 490 520 580 174 190 210 250 86 240 380 530 Blaine (pt) 57,186 67,900 75,200 86,000 21,077 24,500 28,800 33,000 19,668 24,000 24,750 26,600 Centerville 3,792 3,990 4,100 4,200 1,315 1,400 1,520 1,700 409 500 500 500 Circle Pines 4,918 5,100 5,200 5,300 2,006 2,150 2,250 2,300 790 1,160 1,400 1,450 Columbia Heights 19,496 20,000 20,600 21,700 7,926 8,400 8,800 9,300 3,484 4,540 4,790 5,300 Columbus 3,914 3,970 4,510 5,300 1,416 1,580 1,850 2,200 1,172 1,430 1,570 1,850 Coon Rapids 61,476 66,000 70,200 72,500 23,532 26,300 28,300 29,300 23,260 30,700 34,700 35,700 East Bethel 11,626 12,200 14,100 18,200 4,060 4,730 5,700 7,400 1,123 1,550 1,810 2,200 Fridley 27,208 28,100 28,600 29,400 11,110 11,700 12,400 12,800 21,333 25,300 27,000 29,800 Ham Lake 15,296 16,000 16,600 17,300 5,171 5,800 6,400 7,100 2,931 3,650 3,960 4,480 Hilltop 744 950 1,030 1,100 380 480 520 550 314 320 350 360 Lexington 2,049 2,130 2,260 2,300 787 890 970 1,000 467 660 690 700 Lino Lakes 20,216 22,000 24,800 29,000 6,174 7,100 8,700 10,600 3,313 4,420 4,940 6,000 Linwood Township 5,123 4,740 4,700 4,700 1,884 1,920 1,960 2,000 219 330 380 430 Nowthen 4,443 4,700 4,890 5,400 1,450 1,640 1,870 2,100 318 480 580 720 Oak Grove 8,031 8,300 9,200 10,200 2,744 3,140 3,620 4,100 741 870 920 1,010 Ramsey 23,668 25,900 28,300 32,800 8,033 9,100 10,800 13,000 4,779 6,100 6,600 7,600 St. Francis 7,218 7,800 9,300 12,500 2,520 3,030 3,760 5,100 1,537 2,080 2,450 3,000 Spring Lake Park (pt) 6,234 6,410 6,640 6,800 2,597 2,850 3,020 3,100 2,934 3,280 3,610 3,670 Anoka County Total 330,844 359,180 384,950 426,080 121,227 135,800 152,950 171,200 106,387 131,010 141,380 152,700 CARVER COUNTY Benton Township 786 800 780 740 297 300 300 300 274 290 320 350 Camden Township 922 890 860 830 329 330 330 330 56 60 60 60 Carver 3,724 5,900 9,800 15,000 1,182 2,120 3,630 5,600 187 650 1,030 1,700 Chanhassen (pt) 22,952 25,100 29,800 36,200 8,352 9,550 11,500 14,000 9,746 13,440 14,240 16,240 Chaska 23,770 26,200 30,400 34,900 8,816 10,400 12,300 14,200 11,123 13,700 14,900 16,800 Cologne 1,519 2,060 2,900 4,600 539 820 1,190 1,900 270 380 420 470 Dahlgren Township 1,331 1,190 960 720 494 430 370 300 202 420 310 200 Hamburg 513 530 550 600 201 210 230 250 109 110 130 150 Hancock Township 345 360 390 410 127 140 160 170 10 10 10 10 Hollywood Township 1,041 1,070 1,160 1,200 387 420 460 500 90 140 150 150 Laketown Township t 2,243 1,320 620 - 660 440 220 - 116 90 40 - Mayer 1,749 1,870 2,230 3,000 589 710 880 1,200 151 160 180 200 New Germany 372 500 600 1,400 146 200 250 600 46 60 70 90 Norwood Young America 3,549 4,420 5,900 8,800 1,389 1,900 2,600 3,900 1,165 1,390 1,790 2,300 San Francisco Township 832 880 930 960 307 340 370 400 46 60 80 100 Victoria 7,345 9,400 11,400 15,000 2,435 3,360 4,260 5,700 1,502 1,430 1,780 2,270 Waconia 10,697 12,900 16,700 22,100 3,909 4,970 6,700 8,900 5,578 7,200 8,300 10,200 Waconia Township 1,228 1,320 1,470 1,500 434 490 540 600 98 210 300 400 Watertown 4,205 4,460 5,200 6,700 1,564 1,840 2,200 2,900 556 750 940 1,220 Watertown Township 1,204 1,290 1,160 1,100 468 500 500 500 392 420 410 400 Young America Township 715 720 740 760 266 280 290 300 119 110 110 120 Carver County Total 91,042 103,180 124,550 _ 156,520 32,891 39,750 49,280 62,550 31,836 41.080 45.570 53.430 86,530 Employment Population 2010 2020 Households 2040 14,279 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 DAKOTA COUNTY 360 360 109 110 110 110 92 100 Apple Valley 49,084 56,300 62,900 65,600 18,875 22,500 25,500 26,500 Burnsville 60,306 62,900 65,400 66,700 24,283 25,900 27,100 27,700 Castle Rock Township 1,342 1,330 1,310 1,300 504 520 520 520 Coates 161 160 150 150 66 70 70 70 Douglas Township 716 730 730 790 259 280 280 320 Eagan 64,206 70,800 76,100 79,000 25,249 28,200 30,400 31,500 Empire Township 2,444 3,170 4,190 5,300 792 1,150 1,570 2,000 Eureka Township 1,426 1,490 1,570 1,700 518 570 640 700 Farmington 21,086 22,100 26,000 31,500 7,066 8,100 9,800 12,000 Greenvale Township 803 830 860 890 275 300 320 350 Hampton 689 720 750 780 245 260 270 300 Hampton Township 903 940 1,010 1,100 329 370 410 450 Hastings (pt) 22,172 23,100 25,900 30,100 8,735 9,600 11,000 12,900 Inver Grove Heights 33,880 37,000 42,100 47,600 13,476 15,300 17,600 19,900 Lakeville 55,954 61,600 71,800 82,900 18,683 22,100 26,300 30,500 Lilydale 623 910 940 1,000 375 530 570 600 Marshan Township 1,106 1,130 1,210 1,300 403 440 480 520 Mendota 198 270 290 320 78 110 120 130 Mendota Heights 11,071 12,100 13,000 13,400 4,378 4,820 5,200 5,300 Miesville 125 130 130 130 52 60 60 60 New Trier 112 120 150 150 41 50 50 50 Nininger Township 950 970 960 950 372 380 390 400 Northfield (pt) 1,147 1,350 1,700 2,100 414 550 720 900 Randolph 436 450 440 440 168 180 180 180 Randolph Township 659 690 670 650 246 270 280 280 Ravenna Township 2,336 2,400 2,450 2,500 780 840 930 1,000 Rosemount 21,874 24,700 30,500 36,300 7,587 9,000 11,500 14,000 Sciota Township 414 440 450 500 140 160 170 190 South St. Paul 20,160 21,300 22,000 22,500 8,186 9,000 9,400 9,600 Sunfish Lake 521 520 520 520 183 190 200 210 Vermillion 419 420 420 410 156 160 160 170 Vermillion Township 1,192 1,320 1,500 1,700 424 500 580 660 Waterford Township 497 510 520 560 193 210 220 240 West St. Paul 19,540 21,700 22,900 23,900 8,529 9,600 10,100 10,500 Dakota County Total 398,552 434,600 481,520 524,740 152,060 172,270 193,090 210,700 HENNEPIN COUNTY Bloomington ` 82,893 87,300 91,200 95,400 35,905 38,400 40,100 41,900 Brooklyn Center 30,104 31,000 32,900 34,700 10,756 11,800 12,800 13,600 Brooklyn Park 75,781 84,100 91,500 95,500 26,229 30,700 33,900 35,500 Champlin 23,089 23,900 24,200 25,500 8,328 8,800 9,400 10,000 Chanhassen (pt) - - - - _ _ _ _ Corcoran 5,379 7,200 9,500 11,900 1,867 2,700 3,700 4,700 Crystal 22,151 22,800 23,100 23,300 9,183 9,500 9,800 10,000 Dayton (pt) 4,617 6,600 9,100 10,600 1,619 2,500 3,700 4,500 Deephaven 3,642 3,790 3,860 3,900 1,337 1,370 1,390 1,400 Eden Prairie 60,797 71,800 80,200 84,800 23,930 28,800 32,300 34,000 Edina 47,941 49,800 51,800 53,300 20,672 21,500 22,400 23,000 Excelsior 2,188 2,330 2,390 2,600 1,115 1,170 1,190 1,300 Fort Snelling (unorg.) 149 260 320 350 135 170 190 200 Golden Valley 20,371 22,000 23,200 24,300 8,816 9,400 9,900 10,300 Greenfield 2,777 2,870 3,370 4,100 936 1,070 1,300 1,600 Greenwood 688 780 800 810 290 300 300 300 Hanover (pt) 609 550 530 520 196 200 200 200 Hopkins 17,591 19,700 20,800 21,600 8,366 9,300 9,700 10,000 86,530 Employment 105,800 2010 2020 2030 2040 14,279 17,300 19,100 19,500 31,593 39,300 43,100 44,100 356 360 360 360 109 110 110 110 92 100 100 100 49,526 62,600 68,600 70,200 255 260 280 300 460 460 460 460 4,438 5,200 5,900 7,200 49 270 440 630 127 140 150 160 85 90 90 90 8,532 9,130 9,920 11,300 9,442 11,300 12,400 14,000 13,862 18,400 20,200 23,400 355 420 420 420 117 230 300 370 270 280 300 300 11,550 12,600 14,200 14,400 116 120 130 140 35 40 50 60 149 210 270 340 470 480 490 500 122 130 130 130 113 120 120 120 38 50 60 60 6,721 9,000 10,700 13,900 33 190 340 500 8,557 8,600 9,600 11,000 8 10 10 10 93 140 180 210 90 90 90 90 679 760 780 820 7,471 8,900 9,600 10,600 170,192 207,390 228,980 245,880 86,530 100,600 105,800 111,000 11,001 12,900 13,900 15,400 24,084 34,500 40,600 42,000 4,012 4,860 5,500 5,600 1,159 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,093 1,340 1,660 2,200 3,929 4,640 4,970 5,500 921 1,540 2,070 3,000 688 820 820 820 48,775 60,900 68,300 70,000 47,457 51,400 53,200 56,100 2,220 2,200 2,200 2,200 23,215 23,800 24,800 26,000 33,194 37,500 38,900 41,500 613 620 660 750 82 200 340 350 36 50 50 50 11,009 14,000 14,000 14,000 Population Households Employment 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 Independence 3,504 4,050 4,420 5,400 1,241 1,440 1,780 2,200 587 670 710 770 Long Lake 1,768 1,890 1,940 2,100 732 810 910 1,000 1,093 1,560 1,860 1,930 Loretto 650 660 670 670 269 290 300 300 366 370 370 370 Maple Grove 61,567 69,300 76,000 84,800 22,867 26,100 29,400 33,000 29,877 39,500 43,100 49,500 Maple Plain 1,768 1,980 2,190 2,300 723 850 950 1,000 1,579 1,740 1,740 1,750 Medicine Lake 371 400 400 400 160 170 170 170 15 60 100 100 Medina 4,892 5,800 7,000 9,000 1,702 2,200 2,700 3,500 3,351 4,550 4,550 4,580 Minneapolis 382,578 424,700 449,500 466,400 163,540 184,200 195,600 202,700 281,732 324,000 334,500 356,000 Minnetonka 49,734 55,900 60,600 63,000 21,901 24,600 26,600 27,500 44,228 55,700 61,700 63,200 Minnetonka Beach 539 570 610 610 201 210 220 220 174 210 250 250 Minnetrista 6,384 7,500 9,800 13,000 2,176 2,770 3,740 5,000 665 700 720 740 Mound 9,052 9,600 9,900 10,500 3,974 4,220 4,510 4,800 1,165 1,550 1,840 1,900 New Hope 20,339 21,100 22,000 22,800 8,427 9,000 9,500 9,800 11,080 12,400 13,600 15,300 Orono 7,437 8,000 8,300 9,400 2,826 3,050 3,430 3,900 1,562 1,590 1,660 1,780 Osseo 2,430 2,660 2,900 3,100 1,128 1,270 1,400 1,500 1,749 2,130 2,280 2,530 Plymouth 70,576 75,400 81,600 87,800 28,663 30,600 33,100 35,500 46,227 54,900 59,400 66,500 Richfield 35,228 37,300 38,800 39,900 14,818 16,200 17,000 17,500 15,604 17,500 17,700 18,400 Robbinsdale 13,953 14,600 14,800 15,300 6,032 6,300 6,600 6,800 6,858 7,300 7,400 7,600 Rockford (pt) 426 520 660 800 184 250 330 400 94 260 400 550 Rogers 0 11,197 12,600 16,200 21,300 3,748 4,690 6,200 8,200 7,907 10,000 11,500 14,800 St. Anthony (pt) 5,156 5,240 5,860 6,300 2,210 2,480 2,770 3,000 1,626 1,930 1,940 2,090 St. Bonifacius 2,283 2,210 2,200 2,200 863 880 890 900 478 480 500 500 St. Louis Park 45,250 50,100 52,700 54,500 21,743 23,700 24,800 25,500 40,485 44,500 46,200 49,100 Shorewood 7,307 7,400 7,400 7,400 2,658 2,820 2,940 3,000 1,113 1,200 1,200 1,200 Spring Park 1,669 1,950 2,120 2,200 897 1,000 1,070 1,100 583 650 690 700 Tonka Bay 1,475 1,490 1,500 1,500 586 630 670 680 298 440 540 570 Wayzata 3,688 4,270 4,670 4,900 1,795 2,070 2,210 2,300 4,567 5,300 5,800 5,900 Woodland 437 490 530 540 169 180 180 180 8 10 20 20 Hennepin County Total 1,152,425 1,264,460 1,354,040 1,431,300 475,913 530,660 572,240 604,150 805,089 944,230 1,001,200 1,066,260 RAMSEY COUNTY Arden Hills 9,552 11,400 13,300 13,500 2,957 3,750 4,600 4,600 12,402 15,100 17,900 18,400 Blaine (pt) - - - - - - - - 893 900 950 1,000 Falcon Heights 5,321 5,400 5,400 5,300 2,131 2,170 2,180 2,200 5,298 5,300 6,000 6,800 Gem Lake 393 500 570 590 155 210 240 250 526 560 630 640 Lauderdale 2,379 2,450 2,430 2,400 1,130 1,160 1,180 1,200 718 690 830 1,000 Little Canada 9,773 10,400 10,800 11,100 4,393 4,640 4,810 4,900 5,467 7,700 8,500 8,700 Maplewood 38,018 41,200 44,800 47,900 14,882 16,700 18,400 19,700 27,635 32,000 33,700 36,600 Mounds View 12,155 12,400 12,500 13,100 4,954 5,100 5,200 5,500 6,386 6,900 7,200 8,200 New Brighton 21,456 23,000 24,600 26,000 8,915 9,800 10,600 11,200 9,213 11,200 12,100 13,500 North Oaks 4,469 4,760 4,800 4,900 1,746 1,920 2,040 2,100 1,260 1,300 1,300 1,300 North St. Paul 11,460 12,200 12,500 13,100 4,615 5,100 5,400 5,700 2,942 3,120 3,330 3,610 Roseville 33,660 35,100 35,900 38,700 14,623 15,100 15,600 17,000 35,104 39,700 41,300 44,100 St. Anthony (pt) 3,070 3,810 4,090 4,300 1,638 1,800 1,930 2,000 1,357 1,710 1,870 2,050 St. Paul 285,068 308,600 324,100 334,700 111,001 125,000 132,800 137,600 175,933 190,900 201,900 218,000 Shoreview 25,043 26,200 27,200 27,500 10,402 10,800 11,200 11,300 11,665 13,300 15,200 15,500 Spring Lake Park (pt) 178 180 200 220 75 80 90 100 66 80 90 100 Vadnais Heights 12,302 13,200 14,100 14,500 5,066 5,700 6,100 6,300 6,678 10,200 12,100 12,600 White Bear Township 10,949 11,300 11,800 12,000 4,261 4,570 4,790 4,900 2,309 3,570 4,580 4,780 White Bear Lake (pt) 23,394 23,890 25,460 27,500 9,747 10,320 11,100 12,000 11,085 11,760 11,780 11,800 Ramsey County Total 508,640 545,990 574,550 597,310 202,691 223,920 238,260 248,550 316,937 355,990 381.260 408.680 Population Households Employment 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 SCOTT COUNTY Belle Plaine 6,661 7,700 9,600 13,300 2,362 2,950 3,780 5,300 1,847 2,630 2,860 3,300 Belle Plaine Township 878 850 840 820 310 320 320 320 69 70 70 70 Blakeley Township 418 390 380 370 165 170 170 170 69 80 90 100 Cedar Lake Township 2,779 3,050 3,200 3,600 939 1,070 1,230 1,400 82 170 260 340 Credit River Township 5,096 5,300 5,200 5,000 1,662 1,730 1,820 1,900 397 400 410 420 Elko New Market 4,110 5,800 8,000 12,200 1,259 1,910 2,820 4,500 317 530 650 840 Helena Township 1,648 1,740 1,720 1,700 548 590 650 700 147 150 150 150 Jackson Township 1,464 1,370 1,320 1,300 486 500 500 500 168 310 420 530 Jordan 5,470 7,100 7,700 10,700 1,871 2,360 3,040 4,300 1,587 2,180 2,450 2,900 Louisville Township 1,266 1,230 1,210 1,200 425 430 430 430 298 300 300 300 New Market Township 3,440 3,310 3,300 3,300 1,146 1,170 1,180 1,200 325 490 500 500 New Prague (pt) 4,280 4,940 6,050 7,200 1,618 2,050 2,580 3,100 2,142 2,450 2,800 3,270 Prior Lake 22,796 25,500 31,300 39,300 8,447 10,000 12,500 15,700 7,766 9,400 10,700 12,900 St. Lawrence Township 483 560 690 810 161 210 270 320 48 50 50 50 Sand Creek Township 1,521 1,440 1,420 1,400 554 560 560 560 298 380 420 460 Savage 26,911 33,900 36,700 38,200 9,116 11,600 13,400 14,300 6,753 8,400 9,300 9,500 Shakopee 37,076 41,800 49,300 57,400 12,772 15,300 18,400 21,500 18,831 23,600 27,000 31,900 Spring Lake Township 3,631 3,840 3,970 4,100 1,267 1,370 1,480 1,600 390 400 400 400 Scott County Total 129,928 149,820 171,900 201,900 45,108 54,290 65,130 77,800 41,534 51,990 58,830 67,930 WASHINGTON COUNTY Afton 2,886 2,960 3,050 3,100 1,081 1,140 1,230 1,300 411 470 480 490 Bayport 3,471 3,900 4,210 4,400 855 1,070 1,220 1,300 3,790 4,370 4,990 5,100 Baytown Township 1,617 1,660 1,850 2,000 573 620 700 760 69 110 190 260 Birchwood Village 870 860 850 840 351 360 360 360 25 20 30 30 Cottage Grove 34,589 37,500 43,200 49,300 11,719 13,700 16,200 18,600 6,484 7,600 8,400 9,600 Dellwood 1,065 1,080 1,090 1,100 373 400 420 450 277 270 280 300 Denmark Township 1,737 1,890 2,170 2,500 615 730 860 1,000 629 630 640 650 Forest Lake 18,377 19,700 23,300 28,300 7,015 8,100 9,800 12,000 6,449 7,400 8,200 9,700 Grant 4,094 4,270 4,280 4,300 1,463 1,530 1,620 1,700 449 610 700 840 Grey Cloud Island Township 295 280 280 280 117 120 120 120 10 20 30 40 Hastings (pt) - - - - - - - - 64 70 80 100 Hugo 13,332 16,700 23,300 32,500 4,990 6,800 9,800 13,600 1,973 2,990 3,290 4,000 Lake Elmo 8,061 10,300 14,500 20,500 2,776 3,880 5,700 8,000 1,941 2,550 2,740 3,160 Lakeland 1,796 1,730 1,680 1,500 681 690 700 710 302 400 440 470 Lakeland Shores 311 310 340 360 117 130 150 160 26 30 40 40 Lake St. Croix Beach 1,053 1,160 1,000 1,000 460 470 480 500 129 130 130 130 Landfall 663 770 770 770 257 300 300 300 25 30 30 30 Mahtomedi 7,676 7,800 7,700 7,700 2,827 2,950 3,050 3,100 2,090 2,510 2,620 2,660 Marine on St. Croix 689 780 890 1,000 302 350 400 450 124 140 150 160 May Township 2,776 2,980 3,360 3,800 1,083 1,230 1,410 1,600 66 130 150 180 Newport 3,435 3,730 4,230 4,600 1,354 1,630 1,910 2,100 1,605 1,990 1,960 2,000 Oakdale 27,401 28,800 30,400 31,000 10,956 11,900 12,700 13,000 8,651 12,500 14,500 15,000 Oak Park Heights 4,445 5,100 5,600 5,800 1,911 2,240 2,490 2,600 4,358 6,000 7,300 7,500 Pine Springs 408 390 380 370 144 150 150 150 72 80 80 80 St. Marys Point 366 340 340 330 147 150 150 150 15 20 20 20 St. Paul Park 5,273 5,600 6,500 7,900 1,967 2,250 2,700 3,300 1,515 1,830 2,070 2,520 Scandia 3,934 4,090 4,530 5,000 1,498 1,670 1,890 2,100 519 610 650 730 Stillwater 18,227 20,000 21,700 22,500 7,076 8,300 9,100 9,500 9,628 10,700 11,500 11,700 Stillwater Township 2,364 2,460 2,530 2,700 855 920 1,020 1,100 165 200 230 250 West Lakeland Township 4,054 4,100 4,050 4,000 1,286 1,350 1,430 1,500 232 320 340 370 White Bear Lake (pt) 403 460 580 680 198 200 250 300 184 190 200 200 Willernie 507 500 490 480 218 230 230 230 182 200 200 200 Woodbury 61,961 74,000 84,400 87,200 22,594 27,200 31,500 33,100 19,438 23,900 25,700 28,700 Washington County Total YCTdA ALGA. 238,136 n nen www 266,200 n .nn •ww.. 303,550 w ------ 337,810 ��� ��� 87,859 ..� �.� 102,760 120,040 135,140 71,897 89,020 98,360 _ _ 107,210 Wittman, Lisa From: Helen Liss <jhl2352@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 10:03 AM To: Wittman, Lisa Subject: Issues regarding Amendment to General Land Use/Hwy 55 Area Dear Planning Commission Members, We are property owners at 9010 and 9300 (Olson Highway) Golden Valley Road as well as residents of Golden Valley. We received the Notice of Informal Public Hearing to consider amending the 2010-2030 General Plan Use Map for properties at 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road and have questions and issues on this potential change. 1. Why are these changes being considered? Who or what are the driving forces behind these possible changes? There was no interested party's name on the notice we received on Friday, April 3, 2015, however there was an interested developer's representative for possible rental senior, lower income residences, at the Council/Manager's meeting on March 10, 2015? According to the City's planning office, the considered change wasn't in response to an interested developer. Seems to be a discrepancy. The Planning Commission didn't seem to think this was a good thing to consider at the February 23, 2015 meeting, so why is it being considered again? 2. Our properties' future marketability in terms of leasing or selling to a retail/commercial user could be negatively impacted if you change the land use in this area of Golden Valley. This change could result in our properties becoming "retail/commercial islands". 3. The idea of making this area part of a Pedestrian Overlay doesn't make sense in terms of its proximity to the downtown of Golden Valley. Maybe the members of the Planning Commission could consider walking from this area to the downtown Golden Valley area to see if they think this is feasible. If our properties were included in a Pedestrian Overland District, there could be considerable restrictions on the use of our properties in the future. Even if sidewalks are added, we DO have winter 6 months out of the year here and if the potential "walkers" are seniors and the handicapped from the JHAP facility, it doesn't seem feasible for them to walk on icy sidewalks, across Boone, around the curving Golden Valley Road. The "vision" for this area may not be workable or sensible. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Helen and Jonathan Liss 235 Nevada Ave. So. Golden Valley, MN 55426 Jz x II Pa,x I` U� ? 0300 M i PnM� 11 I - CITY OF NEW HOPE .��• • CITY OF NEW HOPE ' CITY OF CRYSTAL� � •..., < �� ' cam.. sre<. a a.w•,... `"" s a .,'; f I o , CITY OF RORRINSDALF • p e a E+ ! v1 -, - .e�. n•�• -------------------------- .. u o ° . 4 a, m z .J I `• � t,m• � < a h.,y, mv. a°,° ` PomfA .,. wv z i rPara x \ z a a , uv m" m. n..x • e,,. r+ 1'exm w � - ♦ w"°" se•.°x 0.a - n a --------- 0 TU I � a _ I ` �� s � i��I --t-+� �. � sm _ c xn aa. am.n v.a _� w ° v..a� •v^` '"x.s r a as r , u- y /JJ . � < � o` • a n<.v< � R W � s e A 'a _ �eA ' 1 '6'°hm 0 I _ s :t w� ° .. ,•ate s,. Subject sect ° ° a ) ci=: �mw+ 66 ; oa- - m - r..,.w•.. a•v0. xn mw°xa x+r ss'y`, ria nr. ,� - -. � � . e C m ° _- T.V(' � I^�~�yo.° _ W° x µn naa a.o•rn., in xwY _ jam tl �� �• -_= m i •. carcayse e = °wc a ,g , S .s c f r� � � � � 3 � 1 I a °. m _ n U _♦�,.. ( „rias �L4bY Rx� � E f qu'� ..e,n�m :._� p.�o .Ao• i rW' ' eM V n i L .- , �j „n ---/I l � CITY OF._.---------------------------------. / ST. LOUIS PARK Westwood y --— �------- Lake CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK z»`st _ r City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 -at" iyml 763-593-8095 -€s' _ n www.goldenvalleymn.gov _ _a'` ' o•'° pare Theodore Wi Regional Pa 1pls Park & Rec I I ;3 I Wath ` Lake ' a a z city of ,,^ golden] e 2010-2030 GENERAL LAND USE PLAN Residential Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre) 0 Medium -Low Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) - Medium -High Density (12 to 19.9 units per acre) _ High Density (20 or more units per acre) Commercial 0 Office 0 Retail/Service (also includes Office) Industrial 0 Light Industrial (also Includes Office) ® Industrial (also includes Once) L-1 Open Space - Public and Private Ownership �l Schools and Religious Facilities Public Facilities - Miscellaneous - Semi -Public Facilities - Miscellaneous �. Open Water - Based on 2008 Aerial Photography Wetlands - National Wetlands Inventory, Ban Engineering, and HR Green 1999 SWMP - not field verified `= Railroad Road Rights -of -Way Private Streets ----- -- Municipal Line w Data December 4, 2008 O Sources -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2008). �^•.' F -DNR, HR Green Baff Engineering for Wetlands '- U - City of Golden Valley for all other layers. sed Aao o aw I.— z.4oa LyY Feel 011 Brownie Lake 1,\M apslGeneralLandUsePl an2010-2030_24z36.pdf Date: April 13, 2015 Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 1763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Revisions to Planning Commission By-laws At the March 3, 2015, City Council meeting, the Council adopted changes to its Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils. Specifically, they limited the terms of office for the Chair and Vice -Chair of each body to a maximum of two years. In light of these changes, each Board and Commission must review their by-laws for consistency, make recommendations for amendments, and send them to the Council for approval. The Planning Commission By-laws do not currently provide for restrictions on the terms of office. Recommended Action Staff recommends the following changes be made to the by-laws in order to remain consistent with the newly approved Guidelines: Section 11. At the annual meeting in May of each year, the Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and such other offices as it may deem necessary; but in case of failure to elect at the time specified, the election shall take place at a subsequent meeting without delay. The Chair, Vice -Chair, and Secretary shall hold their respective officers until the next annual meeting after their election, and until their successors are elected and qualified. Terms of office for the Chair and Vice -Chair shall be for a maximum of two years and shall rotate. The Chair and Vice -Chair shall not serve consecutive terms. Attachments Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils (6 pages) By -Laws of the Planning Commission of the City of Golden Valley (5 pages) CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils INTRODUCTION: The City Council wishes to express its appreciation to the many citizens who take time away from their personal and professional lives to serve the community through their membership on the Council's advisory groups. Golden Valley has had a history of extensive citizen involvement. At present approximately 60 advisory commission, board, and committee members participate in providing specialized expertise so that Council decisions can be made with more complete background and knowledge than would otherwise be possible. The Council and the entire community benefit from this invaluable service. Golden Valley is a statutory city. The legislature established it as a city in the early 1970's. The State Statutes provide: "In any such city, there shall be...no administrative board or commission... the Council shall itself perform the duties and exercise the powers and shall govern and administer the functions for which no independent boards are authorized by statute. The Council, may, however, create boards or commissions to advise the Council with respect to any municipal function or activity or to investigate any subject of interest in the City." This Council, and others before it, recognizes the many advantages to be gained from this approach. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to the Council's advisory commissions. The Council is directly responsible for the actions of its advisory commissions. It is hoped that through these guidelines the expectations of the Council, with respect to its advisory commissions will be clearly understood and followed. The Mayor and Council Members welcome any request for discussion or clarification of information that is contained or thought appropriate to be contained in these guidelines. The goals of the Council are better communication with its advisory commissions and better service to the citizens of Golden Valley. CURRENT GOLDEN VALLEY STANDING COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS: The Golden Valley City Council currently has five standing advisory commissions. They are: Environmental Commission Human Rights Commission Open Space and Recreation Commission Planning Commission Teen Committee FRyicion (�Onnoniinn Dreier# FXPG tiVe R19arO There is one advisory foundation: Golden Valley Human Services Fund. Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils Page 2 The Civil Service Commission is an independent commission that has absolute control and supervision over the employment, promotion, discharge, and suspension of police officers of the Police Department, as stipulated under State Statutes. The Board of Zoning Appeals hears requests for variances from the City Zoning Code and makes final determination on all requests unless such requests are denied and appealed to the City Council as stipulated under State Statutes. Short term advisory committees are appointed as needed. These Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils apply to each of these groups as appropriate and as permitted by the laws and ordinances which establish them. I. LEGAL BASIS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS As stated above the State Statutes govern the creation of Council advisory groups. These groups are authorized to exercise all duties which the Council has legally assigned to them. They are frequently authorized to conduct research and make recommendations. It should be remembered, however, that advisory commissions may not make decisions on behalf of the Council. In many cities, it is routine practice for the Council to accept an advisory commission recommendation if the commission has done a thorough and competent job. It must be emphasized, however, that it is the Council's final decision on the matter and not simply the commission recommendation which is effective to bind the municipality. No recommendation of any advisory commission takes effect unless it has been adopted by formal action of the Council. These advisory commissions may be organized in any manner deemed appropriate by the Council. The City Council may create and dissolve them, appoint persons to serve on them, and exercise powers of general supervision over them. A Planning Commission, however, must be established by ordinance and, once established may be dissolved only by an ordinance, which passes, by 2/3 majority vote of the Council. II. OPEN MEETING LAW All meetings of all public bodies in Golden Valley must be open to the public. There can be no such thing as a "closed", "private", or "executive" meeting or session. The only exceptions that have been recognized in the past are certain disciplinary actions conducted by the Police Civil Service Commission and some personnel and legal matters before the Council. The Minnesota Statute requiring City Council meetings to be open to the public has been in existence for many years. A 1973 amendment and court decisions and rulings by the Minnesota Attorney General have made commissions, subcommittees, and other public bodies subject to the statute. Any person violating the open meeting requirement is subject to civil penalty. Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils Page 3 Commissions and committees should be careful to observe the requirements of holding all meetings in public places and posting notices of meeting dates and times at the City Hall. Scheduling of meetings with the Manager's Office will help prevent conflict with other groups over meeting times when public participation is particularly desired. Commission, board, and committee meetings will not be held on designated legal holidays or recognized religious holidays. Any questions regarding the meaning or application of the Open Meeting Law should be directed to the City Council. The Council will seek such advice from the City Attorney as may be necessary. III. COMMISSION ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES A. Term of Office: Appointments to commissions are made effective May 1 of each year. The length of each appointment is provided in the governing ordinance or resolution and is designated by the Council at the time of the appointment. Each permanent advisory commission should elect officers not later than its second meeting after May 1 in each year. The term of office should be one year, unless otherwise specified by the Council, prior to each election. (Chairpersons of special committees may be appointed by the Council.) Voluntary resignations from a commission should be communicated by letter or email from the person resigning to the Mayor. Chair and Vice -Chair. The Chair and Vice -Chair shall be elected from the Commission membership by its members at its regular Annual Meeting. Terms of office shall be for era maximum of tv� year and shall rotate. The Chair and Vice -Chair shall not serve consecutive terms. B. Attendance: Absences in one year should not exceed three consecutive meetings or more than 25 percent of the total meetings for the year. (25 percent of meetings would be three meetings for groups meeting once a month and six meetings for groups meeting twice a month.) If a member is unable to attend a meeting, that member should contact the staff liaison, who will inform the chair if a quorum cannot be attained and the meeting will be cancelled. A standardized letter of warning will be sent from the respective chair to any member after two consecutive and two total for groups meeting once a month. For those meeting twice a month the letter would be sent from the chair after two consecutive or five total absences. If a member exceeds the allowable number of absences the Mayor will send a standardized letter stating the member must step down because of the importance of regular attendance and the number of citizens interested in serving. If a Commission feels there are extenuating circumstances in a case of a member who has not met the attendance requirements, the Commission may send a letter to the Council explaining the situation and request an exception. Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils Page 4 C. By -Laws or Rules of Procedure: Each commission shall propose By -Laws or Rules of Procedure governing its work. Such proposed By -Laws or Rules of Procedure should be submitted to the Council for review and approval prior to implementation. D. Orientation: It shall be the responsibility of the staff liaison to provide to each new member as soon as possible after that member's appointment, copies of the enabling ordinance for the board or commission and its current By -Laws or Rules of Procedure, minutes of meetings of the last one year, these Guidelines, and any other information necessary to orient of new members. (Note: Council Members who are liaison to a Commission will meet with the Chairperson and new members as part of the orientation.) E. Acting as a private citizen: A commission member testifying before the Council as a private citizen should clearly note before testimony that he/she is testifying as a private citizen. F Expenditures: Each Commission is authorized to incur those specific expenditures included in its final budget, as adopted by the Council. Any other expenditures require specific Council approval prior to the time the obligation is incurred. Council approval is necessary prior to solicitation of funding from outside sources for any purpose. G Minutes: A person will be provided by the City to take minutes for the advisory boards and commissions. All such minutes are matters of public record and shall be kept at the City Hall. The unapproved minutes will be circulated to the City Council in a timely manner to allow the Council to be informed on recent actions. The Council will receive and file approved minutes at the next regular Council Meeting following the approval of the minutes by the respective board or commission. Minutes serve the dual function of making an historical record of commission proceedings and of informing the Council regarding the commission's activities. The minutes should, therefore, contain an accurate report of the sequence of events and names of citizens who appear and are heard. In addition to the formal action of the commission, a summary of the reasoning underlying such action should be included in the minutes. H. Staff Liaison: The Council has adopted a policy of providing a staff liaison for each commission. The purpose of this policy is to provide direct information to each commission regarding City policy and practices within its area of interest. The City operates under the "Plan B City Manager" form of government, in which all employees are hired and supervised by the City Manager, who in turn is responsible to the Council. Neither the Council nor any commission member has the authority to direct staff personnel. Any commission recommendations for modification of City policy and practices should be directed to the Council. The liaison will periodically inform the Chair on the members' attendance, particularly when warnings must be sent as provided in Section III.B, and copy to the City Manager to forward to the City Council. Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils Page 5 Council Liaison(s): Each year, at its organizational meeting, the Council shall assign one or more liaison to each Board or Commission. The Council Liaison(s) will meet at least annually with the Board or Commission to which he or she is assigned. These meetings can serve as an informal means for the exchange of information between the Council and the Board or Commission, but all formal communication shall follow procedures as outlined in Section IV. J. Subcommittees: From time to time, the Council may appoint subcommittees of certain commissions in order that special attention be concentrated in specified areas. At the same time, the Council also wants the opinion of the commission regarding each subcommittee's recommendations. Each subcommittee should submit any report or recommendations intended for the Council, first to the Commission for review and comment. Such review and comment should take place at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. If it does not, the report or recommendation of the subcommittee shall be forwarded to the Council without Commission consent. The subcommittee report or recommendation, together with the commission's comments, should be submitted to the Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting. As in the case of commission presentations, a spokesperson for the subcommittee should attend the Council meeting and be prepared to make a presentation and answer questions. The Commission is free to appoint subcommittees of their membership as the commission sees a need. IV. COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM COMMISSIONS A. Council Requests to Commissions: From time to time, the Council will refer items to commissions for recommendation. The purpose of such a referral is to assist the Council in gathering all pertinent facts and sharpening the issues. The request will be referred to the commission in writing by the Mayor. The Council would request a written report from each commission with regard to each such referral. The report should set forth all the pertinent facts and detailed recommendations from the commission. The report should be submitted to the Council Administrative Assistant the Wednesday before the Council meeting so that it may be included in the agenda. Any time a commission report comes before the Council, one representative of the commission should be present to make a presentation and answer questions. In the event there is a difference of opinion on the commission, a minority report may be presented in the same manner. Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils Page 6 B. Commission Requests to Council: Any commission request or recommendation for Council action or legal opinion should be communicated by letter from the chairperson to the Mayor, giving a full explanation of the background of the matter. Along with the letter, the commission should submit or refer to the pertinent portion of its minutes on the subject. The letter to the Mayor should be delivered to the Council Administrative Assistant on the Wednesday before the Council meeting. A presentation for the commission should be made by a representative from the commission. A minority report may also be presented. C. Communications with those other than the City Council: Based upon past experience, the Council believes that there is some potential for misunderstanding regarding communications with persons and governmental units or agencies other than the City Council of Golden Valley. It is essential that members of commissions understand and observe appropriate policies and practices in this regard. The essential principle involved is that the Council alone has the responsibility and authority to adopt the decisions, policies, and recommendations of the City of Golden Valley. The Council values the opinions and advice of its commissions and invites the communication of the same to the Council. The Council will take such opinions and advice into account in formulating the City's official position. This method of proceeding does not preclude a commission from gathering such information as may be pertinent to its activities. Commissions are free, without prior Council approval, to make inquiries and to give necessary background for such inquiries, but careful consideration must be given that these communications cannot be reasonably construed as statements of official City policy and opinion. The matter of distribution of information to the public is one that is not capable of specific rules of practice. In general, any such communication which purports to, or has the effect of communicating an official City position or decision, should be submitted to the Council for prior approval. Other types of communications, which are purely informational and do not involve unresolved questions of City policy, may be disseminated without prior Council approval. Adopted by the City Council - August 6, 2001 Amended - September 20, 2005 Amended - September 3, 2013 Amended — March 3, 2015 BY-LAWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ANNUAL MEETING Section 1. The annual meeting of the City Planning Commission shall be the first regular meeting in May of each year. REGULAR MEETING Section 2. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 7 pm on the second and fourth Monday of each month. A majority of the membership of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. A City staff representative to the Planning Commission shall serve as Recording Secretary. SPECIAL MEETING Section 3. Special meetings may be called by the Chair whenever he/she deems the same expedient or whenever three members request the same in writing. Section 4. The members may adjourn from time to time, absentees being notified. If no quorum is present on the day fixed for a regular, continued or special meeting, the members present may adjourn until a quorum is obtained, or may adjourn said meeting without a definite day fixed. Section 5. Chair or staff shall give personal notice to each commissioner, at least forty- eight hours previous to any special meeting, of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. Section 6. No business shall be transacted at any special meeting other than that named in the call thereof, except by consent of two-thirds of the entire Commission, or by unanimous consent if fewer than two-thirds, but at least a quorum are present. If such consent is obtained, any measure adopted by a vote of a quorum shall have the same effect as if adopted at a regular meeting. ATTENDANCE Section 7. Staff will maintain a record of those Commission members present and those absent for each Planning Commission meeting. Each Planning Commission member is responsible to notify the Planning Staff in the event that he or she will not be able to attend a regularly scheduled meeting. Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from three (3) consecutive meetings or 25 percent of the regularly scheduled meetings in any one year shall constitute grounds for automatic review of a member's appointment by the Council. It shall be the Chairperson's responsibility to contact the Commission member involved and report circumstances for the absences to the City Council. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS Section 8. Meetings shall be called to order by the Chair, or in his/her absence, by the Vice Chair. In the absence of both, the Secretary shall call the meeting to order. In the absence of all officers, the senior member present will call the meeting to order. Section 9. The minutes of previous meetings shall be submitted for approval and any errors noted and corrections made, after which, the regular order of business shall be taken up. The further order of business, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, shall be as follows, and may be shown on the agenda of each regular meeting: 1. Action Items 2. Planning Items 3. Administrative Items 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Section 10. All motions and resolutions offered and/or adopted by the Commission shall be recorded in writing. If it is desired that more than the substance thereof be entered in the minutes, the Chair shall so direct the Recording Secretary, who will incorporate the additional details with the minutes of the meeting. At the request of any Commissioner, the vote of each commissioner shall be taken and entered on the record on any question before the Commission. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Section 11. At the annual meeting in May of each year, the Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and such other offices as it may deem necessary; but in case of failure to elect at the time specified, the election shall take place at a subsequent meeting without delay. The Chair, Vice -Chair, and Secretary shall hold their respective officers until the next annual meeting after their election, and until their successors are elected and qualified. Terms of office shall be for a maximum of two years and shall rotate. The Chair and Vice -Chair shall not serve consecutive terms. DUTIES OF THE CHAIR Section 12. The Chair or designee shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and may present to the Commission such matters as in his/her judgment require attention. When the Commission has not established rules of parliamentary practice, the Chair shall be guided by Roberts' Rules of Order Revised. The Chair shall review the Commissioners' attendance records every six months in both February and August. The Chair shall exercise a general supervision over the business, papers, and property of the Commission and shall act as the Commission's Executive Officer. The Chair or his/her designated representative shall present to the Council all Planning Commission recommendations. The Chair shall perform all other duties as the Commission may prescribe. The Chair may appoint ad hoc committees unless the Commission shall otherwise direct, and shall be an additional member ex officio of all committees. The Chair shall appoint a Planning Commission member to chair each ad hoc committee. The Chair is a voting member of the Commission. DUTIES OF THE VICE CHAIR Section 13. The Vice Chair shall act for the Chair when the Chair is absent or disabled. All duties of the Chair's office or as a member of any committee shall temporarily devolve upon the Vice Chair. Vice Chair shall perform all other duties the Commission may prescribe. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION SECRETARY AND RECORDING SECRETARY Section 14. The Commission Secretary shall sign the minutes and perform all other duties the Commission may prescribe. In the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, the Commission Secretary shall call the meeting to order. A member of the Planning staff shall attend all meetings and act as Recording Secretary to the Commission, and shall, in addition, perform all other duties usually pertaining to this office. He/She shall keep a true and complete record of all proceedings of the Commission, and have charge of the all books, documents and papers which properly belong to this office. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA) Section 15. Any member of the Planning Commission may serve as the representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. A Planning Commissioner, appointed each year at the annual meeting of the Planning commission shall be the fifth member of the board of Zoning Appeals. All of the members of the Planning Commission are alternates to the Board.. In the absence of any member of the Board, any member of the Planning Commission may serve as an alternate. At least one member of the Planning Commission shall be present at each meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. AD HOC COMMITTEES Section 16. The Chair may appoint ad hoc committees unless the Commission shall otherwise direct, and shall be an additional member ex officio, of all committees. The Chair shall appoint a Planning Commission member to chair each ad hoc committee. All committees shall consist of at least three members, except as otherwise ordered by the Commission. Three members of any committee shall constitute a quorum of such committee. If a quorum is not present at a meeting, the members present may prepare reports and submit them to the Planning Commission on behalf of the committee, in which case the report shall name the committee members who prepared it. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as waiving the rights of the Commission at any time to increase or curtail the duties of any committee and/or to direct or control its actions. AMENDMENTS Section 17. The above rules and regulations, or any portion thereof, may be suspended by a majority of the members of the Commission at any regular meeting, or may be amended or repealed by a two-thirds vote of the entire Commission at any regular meeting subsequent to the meeting when the same is proposed. MOTION WITH DUTIES OF PLANNING COMMISSION The ordinance establishing the Planning Commission has several charges and general duties giving direction to the Commission. The City Council, by motion, approves the following list of duties which amplifies and/or gives more specific direction to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall: A. Review and make recommendations on specific development proposals made by private developers and public agencies. B. Review and make recommendations on proposed rezonings, subdivision plans, amendments to the zoning text, platting regulations and variances and similar items having to do with administration and regulatory measures. C. Conduct special studies dealing with items such as renewal, civic design, maintenance of a suitable living and working environment, economic conditions, etc. These studies may be conducted at the initiative of the Planning Commission and/or specific direction from the City Council. D. Review major public capital improvement plans against the policy and goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan for the area. E. Advise and make recommendations relative to housing, new development, and redevelopment projects proposed by the HRA prior to the final commitment of such projects by the HRA. This charge shall also relate to such responsibilities as: 1. Make recommendations to the City Council and/or HRA on the use of Federal and State Funds received for housing and community development. 2. Make recommendations to the City Council on the City's participation in other Federal, State, Metropolitan Council, County and Multi -City Housing and Community Development programs. F. Advise and make recommendations in matters relating to and affecting the environment such as: 1. Taking into account environmental concerns and the impact on the environment of any Planning Commission recommended action. 2. To cooperate with and coordinate environmental proposals and programs with other City groups and Federal, State, Metro, County and other municipal groups. 3. To make such reviews of land reclamation, filling, excavation and grading applications as are required by City ordinance or referred to the Commission by the Council; provided that no review or recommendation shall remove or limit the right of a property owner in accordance with City ordinances and the statutes and constitution of the State of Minnesota. Amended — April 2015