Loading...
pc-agenda-dec-13-21       REGULAR MEETING AGENDA    Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote  options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting  during the planned public comment sections.     Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching  on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, or via Webex by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering  access code 2461 772 2540.     1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  November 22, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting    4. Informal Public Hearing – Future Land Use Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision,  Conditional Use Permit  Applicant: Artessa Development, LLC  Address: Southeast corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road    5. Site Plan Review  Applicant: The Simmons Group  Address: 1111 Douglas Drive      – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2461 772 2540.      6. Council Liaison Report    7. Other Business  a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings    8. Adjournment  December 13, 2021 – 7 pm  Council Chambers  Hybrid Meeting          REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for  attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and  members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable  channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.     1. Call to Order  The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Pockl.     Roll Call  Commissioners in person: Adam Brookins, Sophia Ginis, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl,  Mike  Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum  Commissioners absent:    Rich Baker  Staff present:     Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager  Council Liaison absent:   Gillian Rosenquist    2. Approval of Agenda    Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve the agenda  of November 22, 2021. Motion carried.    3. Approval of Minutes  Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from November 8, 2021.  Commissioner Brookins noted an error on page 5, staff made changes.  Commissioner Segelbaum noted edits on page 1, staff made changes.  MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the  minutes with the noted edits.   Motion carried.    4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendments ‐ Use Tables   Applicant: City of Golden Valley    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager and Myles Campbell, City Planner, introduced both informal  hearings as they’re related. The first hearing, text amendments, is to address uses and the second,  map amendments, is to update Institutional Subdistricts.       November 22, 2021 – 7 pm    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  November 22, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       2  Areas of Work:   Creation of summary Use Tables for each zoning district  o Consolidated uses across zoning districts for quick comparisons  o Easy confirmation of Permitted, Conditional, Restricted, or Prohibited uses   Updated and refined lists of uses via consolidation, elimination, consistent language, etc.  o Clarified/updated language and removed unnecessary/outdated categories  o Reviewed appropriate level of review for uses  o This consolidation into tables allowed staff to remove pages of code   Reorganization of Institutional subdistricts to match the Comprehensive Plan  o Primary focus was changing numerical designations to descriptive ones  o Realignment of some uses between subdistricts triggered a formal map amendment  process   RLUIPA modifications for Places of Worship  o Ensures religious uses are treated with no more scrutiny than other non‐religious  assembly uses  o Requires a handful of text modifications:   Remove Recreational Uses from Industrial district   Amend purpose of Commercial district to include language re. business activity   Add Indoor Entertainment to Light Industrial district as a conditional use   Add Places of Worship to Light Industrial distract as a conditional use   Require firearms dealers to locate at least 750 feet from a Place of Worship   Addition of Manufactured Home Park requirements  o State statute requires manufactured home parks be listed as a conditional use in any  zoning district that allows multifamily buildings   R‐2, R‐3, R‐4, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use  o Staff included general site requirements to govern layout and placement of individual  manufactured homes and other structures    Recommendation   Approval of the Zoning Text Amendments, providing for new summary land use tables and a  general reorganization of allowed land uses in each zoning district.   Approval of the Zoning Map Amendments, reorganizing those properties zoned Institutional into  subdistricts of Assembly, Civic, Medical, and Parks and Natural Areas.    Commissioner Ruby discussed the need for a legend for clarity. Zimmerman pointed out the text prior  to the tables and the language used, then went on to elaborate on ease of viewing on the website and  how formatting will change.   Commissioner Johnson mentioned the places of worship definition and asked about qualifying  “ceremonies and events” as religious institutions and if other locations like a lodge hall would be  included. Staff discussed complying with RLUIPA stating if lodge halls were included then religious  institutions would need to be, however since it’s the reverse‐there is no requirement to add secular  assembly areas.  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  November 22, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       3  Commissioners and staff discussed the details around prohibiting firearms dealers 750 ft from a Place  of Worship and only 350 ft from a residential area. Being that Golden Valley is primarily residential,  anything greater than 350 ft buffer would essential “out zone” a firearms dealer.     Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:26pm and invited in person commenters to speak first.   Susan Thompson  1031 Orkla  Are group homes currently located in residential areas and if they are, will that change as a part of  this process.   Staff responded they are currently zoned residential and that will not change.     Chair Pockl invited call in commenters to speak.     Jason Ostenson  100 Florida Ct   I’m concerned with creating the subdistrict names versus keeping the numbers as I think it will impact  my property to have it listed as a specific subdistrict versus A‐1, A‐3 or something like that. I think this  will cause changes in property value and will cause ill effects for some and tell folks where they can  and can’t live.       Paula Beugen  1784 Maryland Ave N  I would first like better understanding of the timeline of this process.   I’m concerned with cemeteries in the same category as schools, especially because, for example, the  school in my neighborhood is in a residential area and that would not be an appropriate placement  for a cemetery. This may apply elsewhere.      Staff responded to the first caller: everyone’s home will remain R‐1, or R‐2, it’s the zoning of the areas  nearby that would change. For example, a park currently zoned I‐4 would be zoned Parks and Natural  Areas. The resident’s zoning won’t change, but now anyone looking at the zoning map would see  there’s a park nearby, and not left wondering what an I‐4 zoning is and need to call staff or look in the  zoning code to find out.     Staff responded to the second caller that the notices sent out displayed both the informal and formal  meeting dates. The formal hearing at the 12/21 City Council will be when the proposed changes would  be approved, assuming Planning Commission makes the recommendation to do so.   Cemeteries are currently in a zoning district all by themselves and there is currently one cemetery in  Golden Valley. Staff felt it was an inefficient use of an entire category, allowing a cemetery in the same  zoning area as a place of worship seems to make sense. If a school were to sell, they could sell to a  group wanting to put in a cemetery, or a library, museum, or place of worship. Those uses would all be  allowed in this scenario. Utilizing the use tables, staff discussed what uses would be by right and what  would be conditional.     City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  November 22, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       4  Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:40pm    Chair Pockl opened the discussion.     Chair Pockl asked why the cemetery use was permitted and not conditional, staff responded that they  never recommended the change to conditional and so it wasn’t discussed. Members need to come up  with items they’d like mitigated by a CUP, like traffic or noise. Ruby asked if there are other regulations  on cemetery locations, staff responded that if a proposal took place then a county or state jurisdiction  would need to have their requirements met. Golden Valley making it a permitted use doesn’t  determine its inherent allowance.   Commissioner Ginis mentioned considering conditional being that a cemetery may impact the City’s  long‐term planning as cemeteries often lose funding and thus cannot maintain their facilities. Staff  noted that’s how the City obtained the current cemetery. Staff and Commissioners discussed  conditional or restricted use and Brookins mentioned the idea of making it prohibited but making the  current cemetery legally non‐conforming.     Chair Pockl stated comfort with recommending approval and adding cemeteries as conditional,  Brookins stated he believes they should be prohibited. Members and staff discussed this item and  potential conditions as well as how a condition/prohibition would differ from the current zoning.  Johnson suggested that light industrial allow conditional use for lodges or private halls.      MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval  with the changes as recommended by Commissioners of the zoning text amendments.   Motion passed unanimously.     5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment ‐ Reorganization of Institutional Subdistricts  Applicant: City of Golden Valley    Myles Campbell, Planner, restated a few items that were mentioned in the previous presentation.  Campbell displayed maps listed on the website that were in the notice sent out to residents of Golden  Valley. Staff reviewed uses and stated there are no development plans in the Institutional Subdistricts,  this change is the colors on the map and the names of the districts. Staff is moving from the ambiguous  number categories to clearly named subdistricts.     Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, reorganizing those properties zoned  Institutional into subdistricts of Assembly, Civic, Medical, and Parks and Natural Areas.     Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 8:21pm.    No in person commenters.  No call‐in commenters.   City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  November 22, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       5    Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:24pm  Chair Pockl opened the discussion.   Commissioner Ruby asked if there are modifications needed on this recommendation based on the  previous conversation. Staff responded that the map amendment is related to Institutional districts,  not Industrial or Light Industrial.     MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to follow staff  recommendation and recommend approval.    Motion passed unanimously.    Chair Pockl ended the televised portion of the meeting at 8:27pm.    6. Council Liaison Report   Planning Manager Zimmerman reported on behalf of Council Member Rosenquist that Council had  tabled the proposal for 6300 Olson Memorial Highway in order to allow a representative for the  property owner to attend the next regular meeting on December 7. The Council approved the lot  subdivision and Conditional Use Permit for Spire Credit Union.    7. Other Business  Commissioner Johnson applauded staff for devising a hearing notice, accompanied by a web page,  that attempted to explain a complicated issue in simple, easy to understand, language.    8. Adjournment  MOTION by Commissioner Ginis to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and approved  unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm.                                                                                                          ________________________________                                                                                                  Andy Johnson, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant    1      Date:  December 13, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  Informal Public Hearing – Future Land Use Map Amendment for  a Portion of 7001 Golden Valley Road – Artessa    Property address: Southeast portion of 7001 Golden Valley Road  Applicant: Artessa Development, LLC Property owner: Golden Valley Country Club  Current use: Golf course driving range  Proposed lot size: 2.35 acres  Current Land Use: Institutional Proposed Land Use: High Density Residential  Current Zoning: Institutional (I‐4) Proposed Zoning: High Density Residential (R‐4)  Adjacent uses: Golf course (west and north), vacant office (east), office and medical clinic (south)      2020 aerial photo (Hennepin County)      2      Summary of Request  Artessa Development, LLC, is proposing four planning actions to allow for the development of a  portion of the driving range owned by the Golden Valley Country Club. They are requesting a  change to the Future Land Use Map (from an Institutional use to High Density Residential use), a  change to the Zoning Map (from the Institutional (I‐4) Zoning District to the High Density  Residential (R‐4) Zoning District), a subdivision of the property to create a new lot of approximately  2.35 acres, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a sixth floor on the  proposed senior cooperative building.    Background  7001 Golden Valley Road is the street address for the Golden Valley Country Club and Golf Course.  Despite being bisected by Golden Valley Road and a Union Pacific‐owned railroad, the entire  Country Club site is considered a single parcel. Overall, the parcel is 148.76 acres (which will be  reduced slightly now that the Greenway Villas PUD in the northwest corner has been granted final  approval); however, this request is only related to a portion of the parcel located in the southeast  corner of the site. The area in question is at the far end of the existing driving range, along Country  Club Drive and adjacent to the vacant property previously occupied by Optum (United Health).    City staff were first approached by the Country Club in late 2019. The Club had identified areas of  its property which were no longer necessary or relevant to the golf course use, and they wanted to  better understand the approvals necessary in order to sell these portions of the property for  subsequent redevelopment. This site in the southeast corner of the lot was first marketed to  builders and investors in 2020, following which the club selected Lifestyle Communities to partner  with on the redevelopment.    Existing Conditions  The proposed site is approximately 2.35 acres. It currently makes up the southern portion of the  driving range for the Country Club and contains a number of mature (legacy) oak trees. It fronts on  Country Club Drive, to the south, which is classified as a major collector and is a municipal state‐aid  street. The property to the east has been given preliminary approval for redevelopment as a light  industrial business center.    As noted previously, this area has not yet been subdivided from the rest of the property, and so has  only a preliminary parcel description. A full survey is attached with these memos for review.    There are no structures located within the proposed parcel. For decades it has served as the far  end of the driving range and is currently populated with large oak trees. A private access drive runs  north along the west edge of the site, connecting Country Club Drive with the Country Club parking  lot. Under the current proposal, the south end of this drive would be shifted slightly to the west  and the connection would remain.    The site also has a fair amount of topography, dropping as much as 30 feet from the high point  along Country Club drive to a low point in the northeast corner of the site.        3      2020 aerial photo with two foot contours    Proposal  The proposal for the site is to change the guided land use, change the zoning, proceed with a  subdivision that would create a new lot, and request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a sixth  story on the proposed building.    Artessa Development would like to construct a 97‐unit senior cooperative building at this location.  A project narrative provided by the applicant is attached and describes the project in more detail.  Staff will note, as in previous land use and zoning change requests, that while a current proposal is  being put forward, if the land use and zoning changes are approved they are not tied to this  developer or to this project and could change in the future without any additional review or input  from the City (assuming a by‐right project that is not a PUD and does not require any variances to  proceed). Even the proposed use as a senior cooperative could change should this specific proposal  not move forward.    Having said that, the current plan is to construct a six‐story building with two levels of underground  parking and direct access to Country Club Drive. Due to the requested change in land use/zoning by  the developer, the project would be subject to the City’s Mixed‐Income Housing Policy and  therefore a number of units (anywhere from 10% to 15% of the total number) would be required to  be rented or sold as affordable and remain affordable for a period of not less than 20 years. The  project would not be directly associated with the Country Club, but nothing would restrict the  residents from taking advantage of their proximity to the golf course.        4    Draft civil site development plans have been provided by the applicant and are attached, but staff  emphasizes that the approvals for land use and zoning should be reviewed independent of these,  as those decisions are mostly unrelated to the proposed building. Consideration of the minor  subdivision and Conditional Use Permit (in subsequent staff memos) will take the proposed site  plans into account more directly.    Neighborhood Notification and Public Comments  As required under the City’s Neighborhood Notification Policy, a neighborhood meeting was held in  the City Council Chambers on the evening of December 2. Approximately 39 individuals attended –  mostly residents from the neighborhood as well as a few members of the Country Club. Four  individuals attended via Zoom. Primary concerns shared by many were the impact of traffic on  Country Club Drive – both during the lengthy construction period and beyond, especially given  there is no outlet onto Olson Memorial Highway going eastbound. There were also critical  comments about the size/scale/massing and architecture of the building, with the main concern  being that it was too large and would dominate the skyline for the homes across the street. In  general, there was openness to a senior cooperative as a model for independent living in Golden  Valley.    To date, staff has received a number of written communications regarding this proposal – these are  included as the last attachments for this agenda item. A number of comments were provided via  email to Council Members, while others went to staff. An online petition was also submitted in  opposition to the project. The Golden Valley Country Club sent a letter of support and provided  their members with a Fact Sheet. A handful of Country Club members were among those who  commented.    At last count, staff is aware of letters of support from the Country Club, four Country Club  members, and one other individual; letters of opposition from ten residents; and a petition signed  by 57 residents opposing the project.    Required Process  Support from the Planning Commission and City Council for this proposal would also necessitate  review and approval from the Metropolitan Council for the change in land use, requiring a delay in  the final vote on the rezoning, the subdivision, and the Conditional Use Permit until the land use  change was approved.    Staff Review  The City Code does not set specific standards for changing a future land use designation, and the  City Council – with the input of the Planning Commission – has a great deal of latitude in deciding if  the request is consistent with the overall direction and vision of the Comprehensive Plan. In making  a determination, the City should take into account the land use descriptions outlined in the Comp  Plan as well as any potential impacts on the character of the area.    For reference, it is important to understand what both the existing and proposed land uses entail  and the expectations placed on those land uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comp Plan  has the following description of the Institutional ‐ Parks and Natural Areas use:      5    This category includes open spaces used as golf courses, ball fields, playgrounds, parks, nature  areas, stormwater ponding areas, and other undeveloped remnants. This does not include  vacant land envisioned for other uses in the future.    The High Density Residential land use is described as follows:  Apartment buildings and condominiums are the predominant high‐density residential uses, with  senior facilities allowed at higher densities in some locations through a Conditional Use Permit.  This land use is generally located near commercial, office, or institutional uses with access to  multi‐modal options.    The High Density Residential land use allows development in a range of 20 to 100 units per acre  (though the higher end of this range requires separate approval via a Conditional Use Permit under  the City’s zoning regulations). At 2.35 acres, this site could theoretically accommodate anywhere  from 47 to 235 units.    Residential Demand  The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, with significant input from the 2017 Maxfield Housing Needs  Analysis, acknowledges a relative shortage of senior housing in Golden Valley as well as demand for  for‐sale or condominium units. As proposed, the Artessa development would address both of these  areas, though in the form of cooperative ownership rather than condominiums. It would also  contribute ten affordable units to the housing mix based on the current proposal and the City’s  Mixed‐Income Housing Policy.    Traffic  Engineering staff have evaluated the likely traffic resulting from this proposal using the standard  trip generation numbers employed by traffic engineers. These models assume an average of 3.24  trips per day per unit for a senior building, which would result in approximately 314 new trips per  day based on the 97 units proposed. It is likely that a large portion of these trips would find their  way to Olson Memorial Highway heading to and from downtown Minneapolis. Because the  connection between Country Club Drive and Douglas Drive was removed in 2017 as part of the  reconstruction of the County road, in order to go eastbound from this location it is necessary to  first travel west to Rhode Island Avenue and then use the signalized intersection at Highway 55.  Properties along this section of Country Club Drive – residential and non‐residential alike – would  experience an increase in the number of vehicles driving by. However, the increase would be fairly  minor in the larger scheme of trips which were last measured as 1,550 in 2017 prior to the closure  of the eastern terminus.    As noted above, reguiding and rezoning this property for High Density Residential use would not  necessarily designate this site for senior use. A different proposal for general multi‐family  apartments (a permitted use under the proposed zoning) would be associated with a higher trip  generation (an average of 4.54 trips per day per unit) and so could result in more traffic along  Country Club Drive.          6    Context  The current mix of land uses in proximity to the site (both approved and the pending Light  Industrial use at 6300 Olson Memorial Highway) are quite different from the use being proposed.      Future Land Use Map – existing conditions with pending change at 6300 OMH    The site is surrounded to the north and west by the operations of the Golden Valley Country Club –  specifically the driving range, tennis courts, and the tee boxes for Hole #3. To the south, single‐ family homes are located west along Country Club Drive while the Park Nicollet Parkinson’s Center,  a law office, and a Montessori pre‐school are directly across the street. 6300 Olson Memorial  Highway (the old Optum site) is in the process of being redeveloped as a light industrial business  center. In a slightly larger radius, there are other industrial uses across Douglas Drive, the Perpich  Center for Arts Education south of Olson Memorial Highway, and medium density residential north  of the railroad tracks.    The closest High Density Residential developments (all senior buildings) are in the downtown area  or adjacent to Schaper Park to the east.     Staff notes the general lack of retail or service establishments in the area. The closest commercial  businesses are located in the downtown, roughly three‐quarters to one mile to the west along  Country Club Drive. There are no parks in the area. The Country Club, while a significant  green/open space, is private property and would not be an option for recreation for future  residents.      7      Other High Density Residential properties in Golden Valley have tended to be located either near  commercial nodes (the downtown or the Duluth/Hwy 100 area) or directly on larger capacity  roadways (I‐394, Olson Memorial Highway, Medicine Lake Road, etc.). While both Olson Memorial  Highway and Douglas Drive are nearby, neither is immediately accessible given the restricted  access from Country Club Drive.    Finally, the height allowed for the use being proposed is significantly greater than the height  allowed for any of the other surrounding uses, potentially resulting in a tower or island effect for  the site when viewed in comparison to adjacent properties.    Comprehensive Plan Consistency  Finally, staff reviewed the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to help determine if this  proposed change in land use was following the intent of the City’s central guiding document. Based  on the application materials, staff found the following goals and policies to support the reguiding of  the site for high density residential use.  Land Use   Goal 1: Create a Complete Community – Strive for a diverse and balanced community that  contains a variety of residential areas, major employers, retail, service, institutions, and  parks and open spaces.  Objective 1.1 – Improve the variety of housing options, with a focus on  accommodations for seniors.    Housing   Goal 2: Expand the Variety of Housing Options – Expand the variety of housing types and  designs to allow all people a housing choice for all life stages and all economic means.  Objective 2.1 – Prioritize the need for senior housing in the community and support a  variety of senior living arrangements.   Goal 3: Increase Housing Affordability – Increase housing opportunities at a cost that low‐  and moderate‐income households can afford without compromising their ability to pay for  other essential needs.  Objective 3 – Support the production of new, high‐quality, affordable housing in the  City.    However, there are other goals and policies that could be seen to conflict with the proposal.  Land Use   Goal 2: Minimize Conflicts and Impacts of Change – Develop a regulatory framework  designed to minimize potential conflicts between land uses.  Objective 1.2 – Arrange land uses so there are compatible transitions  between major land use types.   Goal 3: Promote High Quality Development – Ensure new development meets high  construction and visual quality standards and includes measures of sustainability.  Objective 3.1 – Encourage developments to respect their surroundings.      8    Objective 3.3 – Recognize and support development patterns that acknowledge the  character of suburban neighborhoods.    Staff Findings  In order to provide support for the recommendation below, staff is offering the following findings  of fact related to reguiding the proposed parcel to a High Density Residential designation:  1. The City would benefit from the addition of affordable units that would be required as a  result of a change in land use.  2. The proposed use of this site for High Density Residential – and more specifically as a senior  cooperative building – fits with a number of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive  Plan while potentially conflicting with others.  3. The site is currently in an area with a variety of land use designations nearby, but none are  as intense or allow for the extent of massing that could result here should the property be  guided for High Density Residential.  4. Instead of acting as a transition between different land uses (Single‐Family and Open  Space), the proposed use could function as a barrier by inserting a more intense use  between two less intense uses.  5. While Engineering staff have concluded that the amount of traffic generated by a senior use  is able to be absorbed by Country Club Drive given its current traffic levels and its type of  construction, the increase in trips would be felt by residents and businesses given the  existing indirect access to Olson Memorial Highway.  6. A specific project has been proposed in association with the change in land use, but there is  no guarantee a more intense or impactful proposal would not emerge that would be  allowed once a High Density Residential designation was established.    Recommended Action  Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of the requested amendment to the Future  Land Use Map, changing the guided land use for a portion of 7100 Golden Valley Road from  Institutional ‐ Parks and Natural Areas to High Density Residential.    Attachments:  Future Land Use Map (1 page)  Project Narrative (6 pages)  Plan Set submitted October 22, 2021 (21 pages)  ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! !!!!!M edi c i neLakeBranchIkePond Colonial Pond Ottawa Pond Glen-woodPond EgretPond LilacPond DuluthPond St.CroixPond Chicago Pond LilacPond Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond DuckPond Loop EPond Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett C re e k Hampshire Pond DecolaPond A NorthRicePond West RingPond Cortlawn Pond DecolaPonds B & C Westwood Lake SchaperPond SouthRicePond East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE DecolaPond F BreckPond NatchezPond MinnaquaPond WirthPond Toledo/AngeloPond HoneywellPond StrawberryPond DecolaPond D Bas s e tt Cr ee k BassettC r e e k Basset t Cr eekBassettC r e e k BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem Pond B Pond C Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond Medicine Lake BrookviewPond A Hidden LakesPond 1 Pond 2A Pond 2B Pond 3 Schaper BallfieldPond Pond O Pond J Spirit of Hope Church Pond GoldenRidgePond Golden Meadows Pond SoccerFieldPond WestPond 201GeneralMillsPond HaroldPond Medicine Lake Road Pond Xenia MitigationPond 10th AvePond SpringPond Briar-woodPond LaurelHills Pond JFB NWPond LogisPond BrownieLake BirchPond MinnaquaWetland GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond SweeneyLakeBranchPond M Pond F Pond DP ond E Dover HillPondLiberty BasinBrookviewGolf Course LionsPark WesleyPark Sochacki Park SchaperPark ScheidParkHampshirePark MedleyPark Briarwood Laurel Avenue Greenbelt Glenview TerracePark North TyrolPark Western AvenueMarsh Nature Area GeartyPark Sandburg AthleticFacility NatchezPark ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods BassettCreekNature Area WildwoodPark IsaacsonPark SouthTyrol Park SeemanPark AdelineNature Area YosemitePark StockmanPark Golden OaksPark St CroixPark LakeviewPark SweeneyPark Perpich CenterBall Fields Ronald B. Davis Community Center Brookview Park Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP) (MPRB) Theodore WirthRegional Park Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary Wirth LakeBeach Golden RidgeNature Area General Mills NaturePreserve General Mills ResearchNature Area BooneOpenSpace GoldenHills Pond MadisonPond SouthTyrolPond LibraryHill IdahoWetland GeorgiaOpen Space ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds JanalynPond MeadowPond O p e n S p a c e OrklaOpenSpace PicnicPavilion Chalet SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.) Bassett Valley Open Space ByrdBluffOpenSpace → FishingDock PaisleyPark XeniaOpenSpace DahlbergOpenSpace Minnaqua Greenbelt (TRPD) (Mpls Park & Rec Board) Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead 456766 456770 456766 456740 456740 4567156 4567102 §¨¦394 §¨¦394 Æÿ55 Æÿ55 Æÿ100 Æÿ100 £¤169 £¤169 34th Ave N Medicine Lake Rd BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir Western Ave (WaterfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve N Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N KalternLn Wynnwood Rd 25th Ave N Bies DrJonellen Ln Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave Wynnwood Rd Kenneth Way Unity Ave NB a s s e ttC r e e k D rQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter 33rd Ave N Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid d e nLnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd Unity Ave NPhoenix St Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir W e l c o meAveNXeniaAveNZ a n e Av e NLindsay St St Croix Ave N St Croix Ave N Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way Green Valley Rd Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St Winsdale St Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr Wesley Dr Plymouth Ave N 10th Ave N Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St Knoll St County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou n ty R d40 Hampshire Ave NWestch esterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQuebe c Av e SWinnetka Ave NWally St Ensign Ave N7th Ave N Golden Valle y Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy Cutacross Rd Olson Memorial Hwy Earl St Flag Ave NHampshire LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln Scott Ave N Drake Rd Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd Dawnview Ter Dona Ln Noble Ave NScottAveNGl e ndenTer Culver R d Marie Ln W Hampton Rd RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDresde n L n Kewanee W ay 26th Ave N Me ri d i a n D r P a r k v i e w B l v d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N B a s s ettCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg aret D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlW e s t b r o o k R d Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbend R dUnity Ave NG reenview LnRegent Ave NSorell Ave Frontenac Ave Quail Ave NSt Croix Ave N Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN o b l e DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstoc k A v e Woodstock Ave Loring LnYosemiteAveN Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN F r ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St Meadow Ln N DahlbergD r Woodstock Ave Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain T e r Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i n g s t o n C i r Glenwood Ave Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave Harold Ave Loring Ln WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St Knoll St Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N Bonni e Ln Medicine Lake Rd Madison Ave W Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70 ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St St C ro ix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr Laurel AveLaurel Ave Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave Colonial Dr Medicine Lake Rd FloridaAveSAlley Market StMarket St Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd VermontAve SWi sc o ns i n Ave SGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir G le n w o o d P k w y (Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacD r NOlson Memorial Hwy Schaper Rd Lilac Dr NG o ld en V alley R dLilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr) BassettCreek Ln (NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd 34th Ave N Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved- Wayzata Blvd Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e n V a lle y D rSchullerCirN F r o n t a g e R d S F r o n t a g e R d Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley Alley (Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr N Ardmore DrT h e o d o r e Wirt h P k w y Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd AlpinePassBren n e r PassDou g la s Ave QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyro l Tr a ilSunset Ridge Westw oodDrS RavineTrTyrol Trai l J analyn C irMadd usLn MeadowLnS AvondaleRdBurntsideDr S u nnyridgeLnBru n swickAveNLeberLn C loverleafDrCloverLnCloverleaf D r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdT oledoAveN Duluth St GoldenValle y R dSpringValleyCirC oun ty Rd 66 (Island Dr)(IslandDr)GoldenValley Rd TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P kw y W ay z a t aBlvd G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAve N (Mpls )ZenithAveNCrest vi ewA ve By r d A v e N Hwy 55 Glenwood Ave Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNE l m daleRd Adell A veM in n a q ua Dr M innaquaD r ToledoAveNOrdwayM arkayRidge Orchard Ave NN o r m a n d y P l CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTr ito n DrT r ito n D rL o w r y Ter 3 3rd AveN SandburgLn LamplighterL n BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCounty Rd 66 P ark Place Blv d (SLP)I-394SFr o n tage R d (SLP )Xeni aAveSCounty Rd 70 L ilacD rNLilacDrNLilacD r NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd S Frontage Rd N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy S F r o n t a g e R d O l s o n M e m o r ia lH w y OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadisson Rd Turnpike RdA lle y AlleyTu r npikeR d Col on ial Dr GlenwoodAve BrunswickAve NMeanderRd MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve Wayzata Blvd I-394SFrontageRd Edgewo odAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S CortlawnCirN Dawnv i e wTerCounty Rd 70 EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwald T e rWestern Ter FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave HalfMoonDr RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d(B a s sett Creek Blvd)Lewis Rd 10th Ave N EllisLnPlym outhAveN Plymouth Ave N Faribault St OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly Dr Maryland A v eNHampshire Pl Olympia St Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll S tWisconsin AveNWinsdaleSt Mandan AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila AveNZealandAveNJulianne Ter J u lia nneTerPatsy Ln WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbend Rd WinnetkaHeightsDr ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr A q uilaAveNZealandAveNS cottAveNRose ManorDuluthSt Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNEl g in Pl 23 rd Ave N Medle y L n (Medley Rd) (Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir )(MayfairR d)(Kin g sV a l l e y Rd)(K ings V al leyRdE)(KingsVall e yRd W ) ( S tr o d e n C ir)(Tama rin Tr ) (Mar qui sRd) Ski Hill R d MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld en V alleyR d G o ld e n V a lle y R dG olden V alleyR d Hwy100H w y 10 0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100 H w y 3 9 4 Hwy 394 Hwy 394 Hwy 394 Hwy 394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHills DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn I-394NFrontageRd I -3 9 4 N Frontage Rd WayzataBlvd I-394SFrontag e R d York AveNValeryRdW asatchLn Hwy 55 Hwy 55 H w y 5 5 O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w yHwy 55 H w y 5 5 County Rd 40 County Rd 40 Glenwood A v e CountyR d 4 0 CountyRd40 GoldenValley R d C o u nty Rd 66ManchesterDr County Rd 156OregonAveS24th Ave N LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN GettysburgCt(Laurel Pt) (Laure lCurv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St B e tty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd I-394 S Front a g e R d Olympia St Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NU n io n P acific Railroad Canadian Pacific Railroad B u rlin g to n N o rt h e r n Sant aFeRailroadCanadianPacificRailroadC anadianP acificR ailroadC anadia n P a c i f i c R ailroad U nion Pacific R a i l r o a d Breck School SandburgMiddle School Perpich Center for Arts Education MNDOT District Office & State Highway Patrol NobleElementarySchool CalvaryLutheranChurch Speak theWord Church 10th AvenueCold Storage School ofEngineeringand Arts GovernmentCenter &Fire Station #1 MeadowbrookElementarySchool King of GraceLutheranChurchand School Churchof St.MargaretMary Good ShepherdCatholic Church&Good ShepherdSchool GoldenValleyLutheranChurch Spirit ofHopeChurch Oak Grove Church HennepinCounty SheriffCommunications Hennepin CountyLibrary Fire Station#3 Valley Community Presbyterian Church ChristianLifeCenter UnityChristChurch RedeemerReformedChurch FireStation#2 Valley of PeaceLutheran Church Golden ValleyCemetery Golden ValleyHistoricalSociety BrookviewCommunityCenter Breck IceArena WaterReservoir U.S.Post Office Loveworks Academy forVisual & Performing Arts C I T Y O F N E W H O P E C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R K CITY OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF ROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF CRYSTALC I T Y O F N E W H O P E CITY OF PLYMOUTHCITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O FST. L O U I S P A R KCITY OFPLYMOUTHCity of G old en Va lley, Eng inee ring7800 Go lden Valley R oadGolden Valle y, MN 554 27-458 8763-593 -8030www.golde nvalle ymn .go v 2020-2040Future Land Use 0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400Feet I Print Date: 8/5/2020Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2020) -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Future Land Use Residential Low Density – up to 5 units per acre Moderate Density – 5 to 8 units per acre Medium Density – 8 to 30 units per acre High Density – 20 to 100 units per acre Commercial Office Retail/Service Industrial Light Industrial Industrial Mixed Use Neighborhood Community Institutional Assembly Civic Medical Open Space Parks and Natural Areas Water Feature Right-of-Way Railroad Right-of-Way (public and private) 4938 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55436 GOLDEN VALLEY COOPERATIVE RE: APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FOR CONSIDERATION OF: ▪ FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE TO HIGH DENSITY ▪ REZONING TO R4 ▪ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 6th STORY AND ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ABOVE 60 FEET ▪ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVALS APPLICANT INFORMATION Full Name: Artessa Development, LLC [Ben Landhauser, Vice President] Daytime Phone: 612.875.1618 Email Address: ben@thislifestyle.com Street Address: 4938 Lincoln Drive City, State, Zip: Edina, MN 55436 PROJECT NARRATIVE The conceptual site plan identifies a 6-story cooperative building comprised of approximately 97 homes. These 97 +/- cooperative homes range in characteristics from 1 bedroom 1 bath to 2 bedroom + den and 2 bath. As the property boundary and planned acquisition has been coordinated with the Golden Valley Country Club, the objective of both parties has centered around preserving as much open space and golf course related functions on the remaining Club property as possible. The design of the cooperative building is intended to compliment and leverage the unique topography of the site. Floor and unit composition has been deliberately assembled to reduce both the interior and exterior massing of the building. From any vantage point, the building appears much smaller than the overall size and number of homes would suggest. 2 levels of underground parking enable the building footprint to remain compact, while providing more than a 1:1.6 ratio of stalls to units within the building. The current façade concept is intended to provide visual interest and intrigue that compliments but doesn’t detract from the Golden Valley Country Club or the surrounding commercial office buildings. Banding and a mix of materials accentuate the lower levels and significant articulation provided by the building design. Page 2 of 6 The cooperative has an age qualification requirement that entails at least one owner of every home in the building to be 62 years of age or older. The proposed cooperative community has been modeled to align with the City’s Mixed-Income Housing Policy. 10 homes will be priced and sold to initial buyers at values consistent with the published 80% AMI levels as established by the Metropolitan Council. Over-time all share values (cooperative home values) will appreciate at a maximum of 2% annually, which will enable those 10 homes to remain at the 80% AMI or become more financially attainable to income levels below 80% for a 40-year period of time. Because of the fixed appreciation levels of all homes in the cooperative, all homes will become more financially attainable over time as the general real estate market will fluctuate at an average appreciation rate greater than the maximum 2% appreciation of the cooperative shares. Similar to other Artessa Cooperatives, the building is finished with extensive common area amenities (approximately 12,000+ sf) that enable our owners to have access to more daily living space and community connection opportunities within the cooperative. The cooperative amenity areas include: ▪ Great Room: A large gathering and hosting space with full kitchen, pantry and a variety of seating spaces designed for both large and small groups to get together. ▪ Entertainment Suite: This entertainment suite is the perfect place to get together and watch a movie, play cards or a game on the brand-new shuffleboard table. Your grand kids won’t stop talking about how fun it is to go visit grandma and grandpa once they see all that the entertainment suite has to offer – including an arcade game table. ▪ Hospitality Suite: A secluded hospitality suite becomes the perfect get away for smaller social gatherings like your wine club, family holiday celebrations and anything in between. ▪ Wellness Studio Whether your daily routine involves a workout, yoga or meditation, the Wellness Studio provides an escape for you to keep that routine in check or get a chance to start a whole new one involving state of the art equipment and multi-purpose flooring selected specifically for the Zvago GV Club community. ▪ Business Center: The business center provides working owners a space to take meetings and all the office amenities similarly found in a co-working space. ▪ Guest Suites: These guest quarters allow you to host additional friends or family in your home without having to upsize your unit in the process. Each guest suite reflects the same characteristics you’d find in a king bed suite in a hotel. ▪ Makerspace: Looking for an area to build a new murphy bed, polish up your skis, tune up your bike or create something without feeling like you are making a mess? Active hobbyists and artists alike transform this space into the woodshop or studio space of their dreams as part of the cooperative living experience. Page 3 of 6 The unit composition of the cooperative includes: UNIT TYPE # OF UNITS SQ. FT. RANGE ONE BEDROOM + DEN 14 1,120 – 1,302 sf 2 BEDROOM 23 1,360 - 1,422 sf 2 BEDROOM + DEN 60 1,560 – 1,796 sf The cooperative does have a full time (32 – 40 hrs. per week) building manager and part-time maintenance technician (20 - 30 hrs. per week) on the premises. These individuals are overseen by a professional property management company. PROPERTY INVOLVED: ADDRESS/ LEGAL PID PROPERTY OWNER CONTRACT/PERMISSION 7001 Golden Valley Road / See attached Legal Description on Survey Part of 321182121002 Golden Valley Country Club Purchase Agreement REZONING INFORMATION OF PROPERTIES INVOLVED: PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE CURRENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING See Attached Legal Description on Plat Parks & Natural Areas I4 – Golf Courses, Parks, Playgrounds & City Offices (R4) High Density Residential R4 ZONING W/CUP PROPOSAL REGULATION PROPOSAL PRINCIPAL USE: Multifamily Cooperative ACCESSORY USE(S): Enclosed and underground parking structure FRONT YARD SETBACK (MIN) (SOUTH): 35 feet SIDE YARD SETBACK (MIN) (WEST & EAST): 20 feet REAR YARD SETBACK (MIN) (NORTH): 20 feet Page 4 of 6 HEIGHT (MAX): 72.5 Feet* SIZE OF PROPERTY: 2.24 acres IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 58.4% RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (GROSS UNITS/ACRE): 41.3 * = AVG HEIGHT MEASURED FROM GRADE AT FRONT OF BUILDING (SOUTHERN FACE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS VS. PROPOSAL: USE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL [BASED ON 97 UNITS] RATIO COUNT GARAGE PARKING 1.62 : 1 158 SURFACE PARKING 0.35 : 1 34 TOTAL PARKING 1.97 : 1 192 BICYCLE PARKING 0.41:1+ 40+ The required number of parking spaces per the City’s requirements for multi-family buildings is: 146 spaces (1.5/unit). The required number of bicycle parking spaces per City requirements is: 8 bicycle spaces (5% of required vehicle spaces) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FACTORS: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use. There has been a high-level demand for additional cooperatives to be developed within the inner core of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In a cooperative we developed in the City of St Paul that has a total of 49 units, there is a waiting list of approximately 142 individuals that would like to buy when a home becomes available. During the sales process of 4 other metropolitan locations we’ve completed, under construction or in pre-sales we continue to have individuals request the development of a cooperative with close proximity to Minneapolis and/or St Paul. The proposed location is tremendous and in a community with a stellar reputation amongst our consumer base as a great place to live. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. We believe the proposed cooperative development aligns with the goals and objectives of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: a. Expands the variety of housing options in the City with a focus on accommodations for seniors b. It is located along a prominent bicycle network (Luce Line Trail) c. The site is near and within walking distance to high frequency transit service (Bus Stops): Page 5 of 6 i. Douglas/HWY 55 d. The proposed high Density Use is consistent to the intend of the proposed use in that it is located near commercial, office or institutional areas with access to multi-modal options. e. The proposed density of approximately 43.3 units per acre is consistent if not less than other high density residential developments in the City: i. Central Park West: 50 units per acre ii. Xenia Apartments: 63.6 units per acre iii. Global Pointe Senior & Talo Apartments: 59.1 units per acre f. We believe that through the intentional sizing of this property and building footprint, that we have aided in preserving and protecting open spaces and natural areas of the remaining Golden Valley Country Club. This would not be possible without the conditional use permit allowing the proposed height and number of floors as the proposal minimizes the amount of redevelopment and preserves as much open space as possible. g. The proposed 97 cooperative units will provide a seasoned resident base with disposable income within walking distance and/or short drive that will support the downtown area at Winnetka Avenue and HWY 55. h. The infusion of the proposed high density use provides an appropriate and compatible transition from the surrounding Office and Institutional uses to the single family neighborhoods further west of the site along Country Club Drive. i. The proposed building materials are high-quality and durable and provide a visually attractive vantage point for upper floors of the building that will be visible from HWY 55. 3. Effect upon property values in the neighboring area. We believe the proposed infusion of a $60M building with individual home values within the cooperative ranging from approximately $272,000 - $800,000 will be a positive impact on the neighboring area. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area. Most of our owner’s trip generation occurs outside of peak traffic volumes and we do not see this demographic having an adverse impact on the transportation network around the site. 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses. The proposed development should not have a direct impact to density upon surrounding land uses but will provide an increase in population supporting nearby commercial and transit uses. 6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy (if applicable to the proposed use). As noted elsewhere in this memo – we are providing 10 homes within the building at a cost equivalent to the 80% AMI as published by the Metropolitan Council. This is consistent with the City’s Mixed-Income Policy. 7. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use. We do not anticipate the proposed development to have any discernable increase to noise levels in the area. Our owners in other cooperatives are respectful and considerate, not only of their fellow cooperative owner, but of the surrounding neighborhood to their home. Page 6 of 6 8. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use. We do not anticipate any discernable impacts related to odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to surrounding properties based on the proposed use. 9. Any increase in pests, including flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use. We do not anticipate any discernable impacts related to pests based upon the proposed use. 10. Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use. We believe the proposed building design and appearance is of high caliber and compliments the setting and surrounding area well from an aesthetic and materiality perspective. 11. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. We believe the proposed cooperative development will be nothing but a positive impact on the Golden Valley community. A development both the City, community at large and future cooperative owners will take tremendous pride in. Respectfully Submitted, Ben Landhauser AICP Executive Vice President Main 612.875.5637 Direct 612.875.1618 ben@thislifestyle.com   1      Date:  December 13, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment for a Portion of  7001 Golden Valley Road – Artessa   Summary of Request  Artessa Development, LLC, is proposing four planning actions to allow for the development of a  portion of the driving range owned by the Golden Valley Country Club. They are requesting a  change to the Future Land Use Map (from an Institutional use to High Density Residential use), a  change to the Zoning Map (from the Institutional (I‐4) Zoning District to the High Density  Residential (R‐4) Zoning District), a subdivision of the property to create a new lot of approximately  2.35 acres, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a sixth floor on the  proposed senior cooperative building.    Background and Existing Conditions  For details on the background of this rezoning request and the existing conditions of the site itself,  please refer to the accompanying memo on the proposed change in guided land use.     Proposal  The zoning request would change the designated zoning from Institutional (I‐4) to High Density  Residential (R‐4).    Required Process  Support from the Planning Commission and City Council for this proposal would also necessitate  review and approval from the Metropolitan Council for the change in land use, requiring a delay in  the final vote on the rezoning, the subdivision, and the Conditional Use Permit until the land use  change was approved.     Staff Review  The City Code does not set specific standards for changing a zoning designation, and the City  Council – with the input of the Planning Commission – has a great deal of latitude in deciding if the  request is consistent with the broader zoning map for the city. In making a determination, the City  should take into account the purpose of zoning as outlined in the City code, which is “to regulate      2    land use within the City, including the location, size, use, and height of buildings, the arrangement  of buildings on lots, and the density of population within the City for the purpose of promoting the  health, safety, order, convenience, and general welfare of all citizens of the City.” (Sec. 113‐2)    This rezoning request seeks to change the site’s zoning from Institutional (I‐4) to High Density  Residential. The purpose statements for both districts follow:    Institutional Zoning  The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to establish areas where both  public and private institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, parks, golf courses,  nursing homes, and public buildings may be located.    High Density Residential Zoning  The purpose of the High Density Residential (R‐4) Zoning District is to provide for  high density housing (up to 50 units per acre for multifamily dwellings and up to 70  units per acre for senior and disability housing) along with directly related and  complementary uses. Multifamily dwellings and senior and disability housing is  permitted to a density of 100 units per acre with a conditional use permit.    Allowed Uses  The following principal uses are listed as permitted in the Institutional (I‐4) Zoning District:  1. Golf courses, country clubs, and polo fields, excepting those carried on as a business such as  miniature golf courses  2. Parks, playgrounds, City offices, fire stations, and other lands incidental to the operation of  the City  3. Essential services, Class I    In addition to these three uses, adult day care centers and child care centers are permitted by  conditional use permit.     In the High Density Residential Zoning District, allowed uses are multi‐family buildings, senior and  physical disability housing, foster family and group foster family homes, and residential facilities  serving up to 25 persons. Additional density in multi‐family and senior and disability housing (up to  100 units per acre) may be allowed through a conditional use permit, as well as structures in excess  of five stories, residential facilities serving more than 25 persons, or retail sales, Class I or II  restaurants, and professional offices on the ground floor when located along a minor arterial or  major collector street.    Compatibility  Another important consideration is whether the rezoning would be compatible with surrounding  uses.          3      Zoning Map – existing conditions with pending change at 6300 OMH    The site sits in the corner of a large parcel (the Country Club) zoned Institutional (I‐4) and likely to  remain as open space/golf course for many years. It is adjacent to another larger property zoned  Office, though a recent proposal before the City Council is set to rezone the property to Light  Industrial. Across Country Club Drive, immediately adjacent properties are also zoned Office.  Single‐family homes extend down Country Club Drive to the west towards the downtown and south  to Olson Memorial Highway.    The nearest multi‐family development is on the far side of the railroad tracks to the north. A  medium density development is located along Golden Valley Road and two new apartments are  being planned for the corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive. As a zoning district, the  current proposal would stand as an island among other uses. While the applicant has suggested the  site would be convenient for seniors given the proximity to the downtown and transit options on  Douglas Drive, the reality is that a walk to the closest portion of the downtown is roughly three  quarters of a mile away and the bus service on Douglas and Olson Memorial is limited to stops  every half hour during AM and PM rush hours (future Bus Rapid Transit may come to Olson  Memorial Highway with a potential stop at Douglas Drive). There are no retail or service uses in the  area that could become walkable destinations, and no public open spaces.    Setback Requirements and Height Restrictions. In the High Density Residential Zoning District, front  yard setbacks for principal structures are 25 feet from the property line, similar to other zoning  districts in the city. For this property, required side and rear yard setbacks would be 20 feet.  Building height is limited to five stories or 60 feet, whichever is less, though the applicant is also  applying for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the height to increase to six stories.      4      Traffic  As described in the land use memo, traffic associated with a multi‐family building could vary  depending on the type us facility and the number of units. The current proposal would be expected  to generate a bit more than 300 new trips per day. Country Club Drive is able to handle this level of  traffic, though adjacent properties would experience a noticeable increase.    Staff Findings  In order to provide support for the recommendation below, staff is offering the following findings  of fact related to rezoning the proposed parcel to a High Density Residential (R‐4) designation:  1. The City would benefit from the addition of affordable units that would be required as a  result of a change in zoning.  2. The proposed use of this site for High Density Residential – and more specifically as a senior  cooperative building – fits with a number of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive  Plan while potentially conflicting with others.  3. The site is currently in an area with a variety of zoning designations nearby, but none are as  intense or allow for the extent of massing that could result here should the property be  zoned for High Density Residential.  4. Instead of acting as a transition between different zoning designations (Single‐Family  Residential and Institutional (I‐4)), the proposed designation could function as a barrier by  inserting a more intense designation between two less intense designations.  5. A High Density Residential zoning designation has typically be located near a commercial  node – providing access to retail and services – or on a major roadway with access to high  frequency transit. The location being proposed lacks those qualities.  6. Though potential residents of a multi‐family building would have views of the Golden Valley  Country Club grounds, the site is private property and no public open space is nearby to  allow for outdoor recreation (active or passive).  7. While Engineering staff have concluded that the amount of traffic generated by a senior use  is able to be absorbed by Country Club Drive given its current traffic levels and its type of  construction, the increase in trips would be felt by residents and businesses given the  existing indirect access to Olson Memorial Highway.  8. A specific project has been proposed in association with the change in zoning, but there is  no guarantee a more intense or impactful proposal would not emerge that would be  allowed once a High Density Residential zoning district was established.    Recommended Action  Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of the requested amendment to the Zoning  Map, changing the zoning designation for a portion of 7100 Golden Valley Road from Institutional  (I‐4) to High Density Residential (R‐4).    Attachments:  Zoning Map (1 page)    !!! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!M edi c i neLakeBranchIkePond Colonial Pond Ottawa Pond Glen-woodPond EgretPond LilacPond DuluthPond St.CroixPond Chicago Pond LilacPond Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond DuckPond Loop EPond Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett C re e k Hampshire Pond DecolaPond A NorthRicePond West RingPond Cortlawn Pond DecolaPonds B & C Westwood Lake SchaperPond SouthRicePond East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE DecolaPond F BreckPond NatchezPond MinnaquaPond WirthPond Toledo/AngeloPond HoneywellPond StrawberryPond DecolaPond D Bas s e tt Cr ee k BassettC r e e k Basset t Cr eekBassettC r e e k BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem Pond B Pond C Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond Medicine Lake BrookviewPond A Hidden LakesPond 1 Pond 2A Pond 2B Pond 3 Schaper BallfieldPond Pond O Pond J Spirit of Hope Church Pond GoldenRidgePond Golden Meadows Pond SoccerFieldPond WestPond 201GeneralMillsPond HaroldPond Medicine Lake Road Pond Xenia MitigationPond 10th AvePond SpringPond Briar-woodPond LaurelHills Pond JFB NWPond LogisPond BrownieLake BirchPond MinnaquaWetland GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond SweeneyLakeBranchPond M Pond F Pond DP ond E Dover HillPondLiberty BasinS w e e n e y L akeBranchBrookviewGolf Course LionsPark WesleyPark Sochacki Park SchaperPark ScheidParkHampshirePark MedleyPark Briarwood Laurel Avenue Greenbelt Glenview TerracePark North TyrolPark Western AvenueMarsh Nature Area GeartyPark Sandburg AthleticFacility NatchezPark ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods BassettCreekNature Area Wildw oodPark IsaacsonPark SouthTyrol Park SeemanPark AdelineNature Area YosemitePark StockmanPark Golden OaksPark St Cr oixPark LakeviewPark SweeneyPark Perpich CenterBall Fields Ronald B. Davis Community Center Brookview Park Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP) (MPRB) Theodore WirthRegional Park Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary Wirth LakeBeach Golden RidgeNature Area Gener al Mills Natur ePreserve General Mills ResearchNature Area BooneOpenSpace GoldenHills Pond MadisonPond SouthTyrolPond LibraryHill IdahoWetland GeorgiaOpen Space ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds JanalynPond MeadowPond O p e n S p a c e OrklaOpenSpace PicnicPavilion Chalet SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.) Bassett Valley Open Space ByrdBluffOpenSpace → FishingDock PaisleyPark XeniaOpenSpace DahlbergOpenSpace Minnaqua Greenbelt (TRPD) (Mpls Park & Rec Board) Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead 456766 456770 456766 456740 456740 4567156 4567102 §¨¦394 §¨¦394 Æÿ55 Æÿ55 Æÿ100 Æÿ100 £¤169 £¤169 34th Ave N Medicine Lake Rd BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir Western Ave (WaterfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve N Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N KalternLn Wynnwood Rd 25th Ave N Bies DrJonellen Ln Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave Wynnwood Rd Kenneth Way Unity Ave NB a s s e ttC r e e k D rQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter 33rd Ave N Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid d e nLnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd Unity Ave NPhoenix St Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir W e l c o meAveNXeniaAveNZ a n e Av e NLindsay St St Croix Ave N St Croix Ave N Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way Green Valley Rd Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St Winsdale St Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr Wesley Dr Plymouth Ave N 10th Ave N Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St Knoll St County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou n ty Rd40 Hampshire Ave NWestch esterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQuebe c Av e SWinnetka Ave NWally St Ensign Ave N7th Ave N Golden Valle y Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy Cutacross Rd Olson Memorial Hwy Earl St Flag Ave NHampshire LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln Scott Ave N Drake Rd Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd Dawnview Ter Dona Ln Noble Ave NScottAveNGl e ndenTer Culver R d Marie Ln W Hampton Rd RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDresde n L n Kewanee W ay 26th Ave N Me ri d i a n D r P a r k v i e w B l v d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N B a s s ettCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlW e s t b r o o k R d Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendR dUnity Ave NG reenview LnRegent Ave NSorell Ave Frontenac Ave Quail Ave NSt Croix Ave N Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN o b l e DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock A v e Woodstock Ave Loring LnYosemiteAveN Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN F r ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St Meadow Ln N DahlbergD r Woodstock Ave Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain T er Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i n g s t o n C i r Glenwood Ave Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave Harold Ave Loring Ln WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St Knoll St Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N Bonnie Ln Medicine Lake Rd Madison Ave W Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70 ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St St Cro ix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr Laurel AveLaurel Ave Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave Colonial Dr Medicine Lake Rd FloridaAveSAlley Market StMarket St Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd VermontAve SWi sc o ns i n AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir G len w o o d P kw y(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacD r NOlson Memorial Hwy Schaper Rd Lilac Dr NG o lden V alley R dLilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr) BassettCreek Ln (NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd 34th Ave N Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved- Wayzata Blvd Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e n V a lle y D rSchullerCirN F r o n t a g e R d S F r o n t a g e R d Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley Alley (Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr N Ardmore DrT h e o d o r e Wirt h P k w y Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd AlpinePassBren n e r PassDou g la s Ave QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTy r olTr a ilSunsetRidge Westw oodDrS RavineTrTyrol Trai l J analyn C irMadd usLn MeadowLnS AvondaleRdBurntsideDr S u nnyridgeLnBru n swickAveNLeberLn C loverleafDrCloverLnCl overleaf D r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdT oledoAveN Duluth St GoldenValle y R dSpringValleyCirC ou nty Rd 66 (Island Dr)(IslandDr)GoldenValley Rd TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P kw yW ay z a t aBl vd G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAve N (Mpls)ZenithAveNCrest vi ewA ve By r d A v e N Hwy 55 Glenwood Ave Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNE l m daleRd AdellA veM in n a quaDr M innaquaD r ToledoAveNOrdwayMa rkayRidge Orchard Ave NN o r m a n d y P l CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTr ito n DrT r ito n D rL o w r y Ter 3 3rd AveN SandburgLn Lamplighter L n BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCounty Rd 66 P ark Place Blv d (SLP)I-394SFr o n tage Rd (SL P)Xeni aAveSCounty Rd 70 L ilacD rNLilacDrNLilacD r NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd S Frontage Rd N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy S F r o n t a g e R d O l s o n M e m o r ia lH w y OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo odCirYosemite CirLawn TerR adisson Rd Turnpike RdA lle y AlleyTu rn pikeR d Col on ial Dr GlenwoodAve BrunswickAve NMeanderRd MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve Wayzata Blvd I-394SFrontageRd Edgewo odAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S CortlawnCirN Dawnv i e wTerCounty Rd 70 EdgewoodAveSK in gCreekRdKentu ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave HalfMoonDr RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d(B a s sett Creek Blvd) Lewis Rd 10thAve N EllisLnPlym outhAveN Plymouth Ave N Faribault St OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly Dr Maryland A v eNHampshire Pl Olympia St Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll S tWisconsin AveNWinsdaleSt Mandan AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila AveNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Ju lia nneTerPatsy Ln WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbend Rd WinnetkaHeightsDr ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr A q uilaAveNZealandAveNS cottAveNRose ManorDuluthSt Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl 23r d Ave N Medle y L n (Medley Rd) (Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir )(Mayf airR d)(Kin g sVa l l e y Rd)(K ings V al leyRdE)(KingsValle yRd W ) ( S tr o d e n C ir)(Tama rin Tr ) (Mar qui sRd) Ski Hill R d MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V alleyR d G o ld e n V a lle y R dG olden V alleyR d Hwy100H w y 10 0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100 H w y 3 9 4 Hwy 394 Hwy 394 Hwy 394 Hwy 394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHills DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn I-394NFrontageRd I -3 9 4 N Frontage Rd WayzataBlvd I-394SFrontag e R d York AveNValeryRdW asatchLn Hwy 55 Hwy 55 H w y 5 5 O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w yHwy 55 H w y 5 5 County Rd 40 County Rd 40 Glenwood A v e CountyR d 4 0 CountyRd40 GoldenValley R d C o u nty Rd 66ManchesterDr County Rd 156OregonAveS24th Ave N LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN GettysburgCt(Laurel Pt) (Laure lCurv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St B e tty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd I-394 S Fron t a g e R d Olympia St Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NU n io n P acific Railroad Canadian Pacific Railroad B u rlin g to n N o rt h e r n Sant aFeRailroadCanadianPacificRailroadC anadianP acificR ailroadC anadia n P a c i f i c R ailroad U nion Pacific R a i l r o a d Breck School SandburgMiddle School Perpich Center for Arts Education MNDOT District Office & State Highway Patrol NobleElementarySchool CalvaryLutheranChurch Speak theWord Church 10th AvenueCold Storage School ofEngineeringand Arts GovernmentCenter &Fire Station #1 MeadowbrookElementarySchool King of GraceLutheranChurchand School Churchof St.MargaretMary Good ShepherdCatholic Church&Good ShepherdSchool GoldenValleyLutheranChurch Spirit ofHopeChurch Oak Grove Church HennepinCounty SheriffCommunications Hennepin CountyLibrary Fire Station#3 Valley Community Presbyterian Church ChristianLifeCenter UnityChristChurch RedeemerReformedChurch FireStation#2 Valley of PeaceLutheran Church Golden ValleyCemetery Golden ValleyHistoricalSociety BrookviewCommunityCenter Breck IceArena WaterReservoir U.S.Post Office Loveworks Academy forVisual & Performing Arts On FireMinistry C I T Y O F N E W H O P E C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R K CITY OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF ROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF CRYSTALC I T Y O F N E W H O P E CITY OF PLYMOUTHCITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O FST. L O U I S P A R KCITY OFPLYMOUTH74 83 94 88 7 5 13 34 8 25 78 87 79 6 75 86 27 56 66 90 46 3365 71 6795 51 70 8163 53 22 93 91 76 84 3947 1-A 72 61 59 68 30-B 77 1-B 42 28 44 89 36 24 18-A 55 2658 95 26-A34 14 48 54 41 98 96 97 100 109 121 120 118 115117123 113 114 110 122 124 112 C C B B A A City of G old en Va lleyPlanning Department7800 Go lden Valley R oadGolden Valle y, MN 55 427-45 88763-593 -8095www.golde nvalleymn .go v Offi cial Zoning Map Zoning Districts I:\Maps\ZoningMap.pdf ORDINANCE NO. 271, 2N D SERIES This is to certify that this is the Official Zoning Map referred to in Section 11.11of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code of the City of Golden Valley. Appr oved Amend ments: Official Zoning Map Ordinance Number CommentsCity CouncilAdoption Date Visit the Planning Department a t City Ha ll fo r a list o f amend me nts appro ve d since a doption . Print Date: 10/12/2021Sources: Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2021). City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400Feet I Adopted this 22nd day of November 2002. 59 (C) (LI) Light (I) (I-3) M edical: Rest Ho mes, NursingHomes, S anitariums (I-4) G olf C ourses, P arks,Playgrounds, City Offices (I-5) (O ) Office (I-1) A ssem bly: C hurche s, S chools (I-2) C ivic: Libra ries, Museum s, Colleges Not Zoned Planned Unit Development (PU D) See the "Official Flood Zone Profile and Map" on file with the City - The collection of floodprofiles contained in the Flood Insurance Study, Volumes 1 of 2 and 2 of 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota, all jurisdictions, dated November 4, 2016, including the Flood Insurance R ate M apsfor the C ity of G olden Valley, panels 27053C0194F, 27053C0213F, 27053C0214F, 27053C0332F, 27053C0351F, 27053C0352F and 27053C0354F, dated Novem ber 4, 2016. Flood Pla in Managem ent Zoning Overlay D istrict I-394 O verlay Zoning District (A , B, & C) Shore land Overlay District See Section on Shoreland M anagem entfor setback distance from protected waters. A (R-1) Single-Fam ily Residential (R-4) High Density R esidential (R-3) M edium D ensity Residential (R-2) M oderate Density R esidential (M U-N ) Mixed U se N eighborhood (M U-C ) Mixed U se C omm unity (M U-E ) Mixed U se Em ploym ent   1      Date:  December 13, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  Informal Public Hearing – Preliminary Plan for Subdivision of a Portion of 7001  Golden Valley Road – Artessa   Summary of Request  Artessa Development, LLC, is proposing four planning actions to allow for the development of a  portion of the driving range owned by the Golden Valley Country Club. They are requesting a  change to the Future Land Use Map (from an Institutional use to High Density Residential use), a  change to the Zoning Map (from the Institutional (I‐4) Zoning District to the High Density  Residential (R‐4) Zoning District), a subdivision of the property to create a new lot of approximately  2.35 acres, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a sixth floor on the  proposed senior cooperative building.    Background and Existing Conditions  For details on the background of this subdivision request and the existing conditions of the site  itself, please refer to the accompanying memo on the proposed change in guided land use.     Proposal  The proposed subdivision request would create a new 2.35 acre lot in the southeast corner of the  existing Country Club parcel.    Required Process  Support from the Planning Commission and City Council for this proposal would also necessitate  review and approval from the Metropolitan Council for the change in land use, requiring a delay in  the final vote on the rezoning, the subdivision, and the Conditional Use Permit until the land use  change was approved.     Staff Review  Because the proposed subdivision is not part of a recorded plat or a recorded registered land  survey, it does not qualify as a minor subdivision and therefore must proceed under the more  general subdivision process identified in the City Code (Sec. 109). The applicant has submitted all of      2    the information required to process the request, including a site survey of existing conditions, a  tree inventory, and a preliminary plat (Artessa at Golden Valley).    The proposed lot area is 2.35 acres. If the property were to be rezoned to High Density Residential  (R‐4), as proposed, the minimum lot area requirement of 20,000 square feet would be met. In  addition, the minimum lot with of 150 feet at the front setback line would also be met. Therefore,  the proposed subdivision would meet all dimensional requirements of the zoning district.    In the R‐4 district, the front yard setback is 25 feet and side and rear yard setbacks are 20 feet.  Given the size of the proposed lot, there would be a sufficient building envelope for development.    Current plans indicate a shared private roadway between the Golden Valley Country Club and  future residents in order to access underground parking to the rear of the building. As is typical  when shared arrangements are proposed, staff will require copies of any agreements to ensure  maintenance and other responsibilities are adequately provided for.    Consistent with the requirements of Sec. 109‐167 of the City Code, the City may require a  reasonable portion of the proposed subdivision to be dedicated to the public for public use as a  park, playground, public open space, etc. Alternatively, a park dedication fee may be contributed in  lieu of land. The City’s adopted fee schedule sets this rate at 6% of the current land value. This fee  may only be used for future acquisition of land for other public use, development of existing park  and playground sites, or debt retirement for land previously acquired for such public purposes.    Necessary Transportation Improvements  As identified in Chapter 4 of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, this area has been identified as a  target location to provide a needed local street connection between Country Club Drive and the  signalized intersection at Douglas Drive:    Country Club Dr/Frontage Rd Extension  As part of the Douglas Dr project, direct access from Country Club Dr to Douglas Dr  north of Hwy 55 was eliminated as a safety improvement. The access was realigned to  operate as a right‐in/right‐out between Country Club Dr and Hwy 55. To improve local  street connectivity, it is desirable to extend Country Club Dr north to join the existing  signalized intersection of Douglas Dr and the North Hwy 55 Frontage Rd east of Douglas  Dr. This would require acquisition of right‐of‐way from the currently vacant site in the  northwest quadrant of Hwy 55 and Douglas Dr. (Golden Valley 2040 Comprehensive  Plan, Chapter 4: Transportation, pages 4‐34 and 4‐35)    This also falls under one of the chapter’s listed implementation actions for Goal 2: Improve the  Functionality and Safety of the Road Network:    “Review redevelopment proposals for opportunities to implement roadway  improvements, monitor traffic impacts, implement access management strategies, and      3    resolve safety deficiencies.” (Golden Valley 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4:  Transportation, page 4‐45)    In light of this, Engineering staff have identified the need for right‐of‐way adjacent to this site to be  dedicated in order to provide land for construction of a future public road. Staff considered various  layouts and alternatives, but determined that best option for locating this right‐of‐way is a  north/south segment that would eventually align with an east/west segment being planned for  6300 Olson Memorial Highway.     While no timing or funding for this road have been identified in the City’s 10 year Capital  Improvement Program, staff believes the proposed subdivision provides an opportunity to position  the City to complete this missing piece in the transportation network.    Dedication of land for this future roadway is included as a condition of approval for the final plat.    Given concerns from residents about the limited access to Olson Memorial Highway from this site,  should the subdivision be approved there may be reason to explore the feasibility of a connection  from this location to Douglas Drive on an accelerated timeline. Otherwise, additional analysis of  future proposed developments in the area, such as within the Golden Valley Country Club driving  range, will be needed to determine if the impacts rise to a level that requires completion of the  frontage road.    Additional Department Review  Engineering staff have reviewed the preliminary plat and, in addition to their comments on the  need for right‐of‐way, noted that the following questions or issues would need to be addressed as  part of the permitting process:  • The applicant is proposing to remove 20 mature oak trees (18 are legacy oaks) and  potentially impacting more oaks with the access and retaining wall construction on east  side. The applicant should try to preserve these trees before removing and stepping  through mitigation options discussed in City code. Consider reducing or relocating the  amount of surface parking and adjusting the site and grading plans.  • The applicant must attempt to provide above‐ground multi‐benefit stormwater treatment,  or provide documentation as to why that can’t be achieved.  • Soil borings are needed in the exact locations where infiltration systems are proposed.  • Pervious pavement systems are often placed under parking areas and other low travel and  low vehicle weight areas to reduce sedimentation and chloride accumulation,  maintenance/plowing issues, and ice/freeze conditions. How many trips will be generated  over this system per day? Any large vehicles? Is this pervious pavers or porous asphalt  pavement or other? These systems require regular maintenance with commercial vacuum  equipment. A maintenance agreement would be needed.  • City code requires applicant to minimize runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The  applicant is steepening grades on the east side of the site and discharging and directing  stormwater toward the adjacent property. What are the pre‐ and post‐runoff rates at the  point of discharge? Where is the EOF for the pervious paver system if the CB inlet is blocked      4    and the street overtops? Is there the potential to work with the property owner to the east  on an underground connection? Where does the neighbor’s CB inlet flow to?   • BCWMC plan review and approval is required.    The Fire Department has also reviewed the application and supports the dedication of land  adjacent to the site for a future right‐of‐way in order to improve public safety response times. In  addition, during permitting the applicant will need to confirm the maneuverability of ladder trucks  through the front circle as well as the “T” at the rear of the building.    Review by Three Rivers Park District was provided given the adjacency of their rights‐of‐way to this  property. Minor comments related to construction as it may impact the Luce Line Regional Trail  were provided to staff.    Evaluation of Preliminary Plat  According to Section 109‐67 of the City Code, the following are the regulations governing approval of  preliminary plats for subdivisions:    Factor/Finding  1. The Council may require changes or revisions as it deems necessary for the health, safety,  general welfare, and convenience of the City.  Standard conditionally met. In order to advance the long‐term transportation network concept  included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, land must be dedicated for a future public road and  included on the final plat.  2. The approval of a preliminary plat is tentative only, involving only the general acceptability  of the layout as submitted.  Standard met. Staff have reviewed the layout and find it to be generally acceptable.  3. Prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the Council, the engineering proposals  pertaining to water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer service, roadway widths, traffic  impacts, and the surfacing of streets shall be approved by the City engineer and other public  officials having jurisdiction.  Standard conditionally met. While the specifics of the site design remain to be fully developed  as part of the submittals for the potential site development, there are no known issues related  to water supply, storm drainage, or sanitary sewer service. Increases in traffic created by this  proposal, while impacting adjacent properties, would not rise to the level of concern with  respect to congestion or roadway condition. Staff are requiring copies of shard access  agreements with the Golden Valley Country Club for review.  4. No plat shall be approved for a subdivision which covers an area subject to periodic  flooding or which contains extremely poor drainage facilities and which would make  adequate drainage of the streets and lots difficult or impossible, unless the subdivider agrees      5    to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area  completely safe for occupancy and provide adequate street and lot drainage.  Standard met. The City Engineer has determined that the site should drain adequately.  5. No plat shall be approved for a subdivision that does not meet the requirements specified  in this chapter.  Standard met.    Recommended Action  Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat for a  portion of 7100 Golden Valley Road (Artessa at Golden Valley) subject to the following conditions:  1. The applicant shall work with staff to dedicate land adjacent to the site sufficient to provide  right‐of‐way for a future public road.  2. The applicant shall include on the final plat the dedication of all drainage and utility easements  deemed necessary to meet City Code requirements.  3. A park dedication fee equal to 6% of the land value shall be paid prior to the release of the final  plat.  4. The applicant shall provide copies of the shared use access easements/agreements over the  Golden Valley Country Club property for vehicle trips associated with the development onto  Country Club Drive and Golden Valley Road for review by the City.  5. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat.      1      Date:  December 13, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit No. 172 to allow for Additional  Height on a Building located on a Portion of 7001 Golden Valley Road – Artessa   Summary of Request  Artessa Development, LLC, is proposing four planning actions to allow for the development of a  portion of the driving range owned by the Golden Valley Country Club. They are requesting a  change to the Future Land Use Map (from an Institutional use to High Density Residential use), a  change to the Zoning Map (from the Institutional (I‐4) Zoning District to the High Density  Residential (R‐4) Zoning District), a subdivision of the property to create a new lot of approximately  2.35 acres, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a sixth floor on the  proposed senior cooperative building.    Background and Existing Conditions  For details on the background of this conditional use permit request and the existing conditions of  the site itself, please refer to the accompanying memo on the proposed change in guided land use.     Proposal  The conditional use permit would allow for a sixth story on a proposed senior cooperative building  on a new 2.35 acre lot in the southeast corner of the existing Country Club parcel.    The proposal envisions a six‐story building for approximately 97 units for seniors aged 62 and up.  The units would include one bedroom plus den, two bedroom, and two bedroom plus den layouts.  A number of amenities would be located on the lower levels – including a great room, an  entertainment suite, a hospitality suite, a wellness studio, a business center, guest suites, and a  makerspace – while the upper stories would be reserved for living units and storage. Two levels of  underground parking would be accessed from the rear (north side) of the building as well as a  surface parking lot in the front (south side) of the building. The front parking lot would have direct  access to Country Club Drive, while the underground parking would be accessed via a driveway  shared with the Golden Valley Country Club.        2    Due to changes in topography, the building would appear to be six stories when viewed from  Country Club Dive, but would function as an eight story building when approached from the north.  If the site is rezoned to High Density Residential (R‐4), as requested, five stories are allowed by  right. A sixth story is allowed only through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.    Because of the rezoning request, the City’s Mixed‐Income Housing Policy would be triggered,  resulting in a requirement that 10% of the units be maintained for at least 20 years at an 80% AMI  affordability level.    The site is currently undeveloped and serves as the far end of the Country Club’s driving range. A  number of significant trees, including 18 legacy oak trees, would need to be removed in order to  grade and develop the site. Appropriate tree mitigation would be required.    Required Process  Support from the Planning Commission and City Council for this proposal would also necessitate  review and approval from the Metropolitan Council for the change in land use, requiring a delay in  the final vote on the rezoning, the subdivision, and the Conditional Use Permit until the land use  change was approved.     Staff Review  Setbacks  In the R‐4 zoning district, buildings must be set back 25 feet from the front property line, though  parking is required to be set back 35 feet. This setback is observed on both accounts under the  proposed site plan. Minimum side and rear setbacks are set at 20 feet with the first 10 feet being  preserved for landscaping. Side and rear yard setbacks for the building have been met, but given  the current layout it appears that the first 24 feet of the rear yard is occupied by a driveway leading  to the underground parking levels. This will need to be modified prior to the issuance of a building  permit or else a variance will be necessary.    Parking  Plans show 158 underground parking spaces and 34 surface spaces for a total of 192 spaces. At 97  units, a total of 146 spaces (or 1.5 spaces per unit) are required.    Bicycle parking is required at a rate of 5% of the minimum number of vehicle spaces, or eight  spaces. Over 40 internal bicycle spaces are proposed.    Trees and Landscaping  The impervious maximum for R‐4 zoned properties is 60% of the lot area. The proposal meets this  requirement with an impervious amount of 58.3% of the lot area. Lot coverage (in structures) is  limited to 60% of the lot area. The proposal meets this requirement with a lot coverage of only  33.6%.    The required tree survey shows the presence of 23 significant trees on the site. 18 of these are  legacy oak trees. All 23 would be removed as part of this proposal and 20 would require mitigation.  This is proposed to be in the form of 116 Category B trees which would be focused on the south      3    and west edges of the property as well as in the northwest corner, providing screening of the  property to the east.    Height and Massing  Building height in the R‐4 zoning district is limited to five stories or 60 feet, whichever is less.  Through a conditional use permit, height may be allowed to increase if the City feels impacts of this  additional height can be mitigated and preventing from unduly impacting surrounding properties.  The applicant has proposed to increase the building height to six stories or approximately 72.5 feet.  From the golf course/driving range, the back side of the building would effectively be eight stories.    The difference in height between the proposed use and the single‐family homes and businesses  immediately across Country Club Drive has generated the greatest amount of concern for  residents.    Additionally, while the building form has been shaped with jogs and incorporates wall articulation  in an attempt to provide visual interest, on the whole the massing is mostly uninterrupted  vertically, rising from ground level to the top of the sixth story without any step backs to break up  the profile.    Additional Department Review  Engineering and Fire staff had no comments related to the requested conditional use permit.    Evaluation  The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the  following factors:  Factor Finding  1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. Past housing studies have  confirmed the need for additional senior  options in Golden Valley, especially for owner‐ occupied units. A less common cooperative  model would help provide a greater variety of  options for seniors looking to remain or move  into the city.  2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard provisionally met. In order for this  proposal to move forward, the Future Land  Use Map would need be revised to designate  the property for High Density Residential use.  Should that occur, the proposed senior  cooperative building would be consistent with  the purpose of that designation and the City’s  vision for housing in this area.      4    3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. There are no indications a sixth  story would negatively impact property values  to any measurable degree beyond the impacts  of a five story building.  4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard met. While traffic levels would  increase on Country Club Drive as a result of  this proposal, Engineering staff believe the  number of trips would not exceed the capacity  of the road, and that the additional trips  generated by the 17 units included in a sixth  story would be minimal. Trips generated would  tend to be in the off‐peak hours.  5. Effect of Increases in Population and  Density  Standard met. Though the introduction of the  use itself would significantly increase the  population density in the area, the inclusion of  a sixth story would play a minimal role in the  overall increase. At 17 units, the sixth floor  would introduce between just 17 to 34  persons to the site.  6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed‐Income  Housing Policy  Standard met. The project would dedicate  10% percent of the units as affordable at the  80% AMI level for a period of not less than 20  years.  7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard met. No such problems are  expected. Noise from eventual residency  would be in line with other multifamily uses.  8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or  Vibration  Standard met. No such problems are  expected.  9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. No such problems are  expected.  10. Visual Appearance Standard not met. The exterior of the new  building would be held to the City’s  architecture and material standards and would  be confirmed with the building permitting  process. However, the significant difference in  height compared to surrounding uses and the  overall massing of the building would have a  dramatic impact on residents and businesses  in the area. Staff is not able to contemplate a      5    potential condition that would help mitigate  this visual impact.  11. Other Effects upon the General Public  Health, Safety, and Welfare  Standard met. The introduction of a sixth floor  on the proposed senior cooperative building  would not generally impact the public health,  safety, or welfare. The use as a whole would  provide a new and needed senior living option.    Recommended Action  Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 172, allowing  for additional height on a building on a portion of 7100 Golden Valley Road.    Attachments  Building Plans (5 pages)  Building Elevations (3 pages)  Perspective Renderings (8 pages)  Letters of Support (11 pages)  Letters of Opposition (21 pages)  CONSULTANTS REVISONS DATE NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER 3801 River Ridge Drive NE, 319.393.9334 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402https://emergentarch.com22 JULY 2021 21024 ARTESSA COOPERATIVEat GOLDEN VALEYCOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554273.0A SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" CONSULTANTS REVISONS DATE NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER 3801 River Ridge Drive NE, 319.393.9334 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402https://emergentarch.com22 JULY 2021 21024 ARTESSA COOPERATIVEat GOLDEN VALEYCOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554273.1A NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" CONSULTANTS REVISONS DATE NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER 3801 River Ridge Drive NE, 319.393.9334 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402https://emergentarch.com22 JULY 2021 21024 ARTESSA COOPERATIVEat GOLDEN VALEYCOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554273.2A PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVESNOT TO SCALE NORTHWEST VIEW SOUTHEAST VIEW DECK VIEW 1014154\309432838.v3 December 8, 2021 Mayor Shep Harris (sharris@goldenvalleymn.gov) Councilmember Larry Fonnest (lfonnest@goldenvalleymn.gov) Councilmember Maurice Harris (mharris@goldenvalleymn.gov) Councilmember Gillian Rosenquist (grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov) Councilmember Kimberly Sanberg (ksanberg@goldenvalleymn.gov) City of Golden Valley Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 VIA EMAIL Re: Applications of Artessa Development, LLC (“Applicant”) – Future Land Use Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Subdivision for Southeastern Corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road (the “Application”)1 Ladies and Gentlemen: Golden Valley Country Club (“GVCC”), the owner of the property described above, writes in support of the Applications. GVCC AND ITS MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES ARE INTEGRAL TO THE CITY Sitting on approximately 150 acres, GVCC is the largest private landowner in its namesake, the City of Golden Valley. GVCC provides dining, golf, and other social and sporting activities to its members and has served as a community resource and centerpiece of the City of Golden Valley for over 106 years. GVCC is also one of the City’s most significant employers, providing employment to approximately 175 fulltime and seasonal staff, many of whom are also residents of the City. More than two hundred GVCC members live in Golden Valley, nearly one half of GVCC’s total membership. A significant number of GVCC’s members also run businesses or work in Golden Valley. GVCC’s membership has grown substantially over the last four years and now includes a high percentage of young local families, many of whom reside in the City. GVCC IS AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY PARTICIPANT GVCC has a history of supporting the City of Golden Valley and its local organizations. For many years, GVCC has hosted events for a number of local organizations, such as the Golden Valley Rotary Club, the Golden Valley Optimist Club, and local schools and churches. GVCC participates in many community events, ranging from Golden Valley Taste and Tour to Golden Valley Pride Festival. GVCC frequently donates its memberships, facilities, services, and funds to support all of these activities. GVCC supports one of Minnesota’s finest caddie programs. This program gives young people, approximately 50 girls and boys annually, the opportunity to earn money and gain 1 GVCC requests that this letter be placed in the official record of the proceedings regarding the Application s. December 8, 2021 Page 2 1014154\309432838.v3 valuable life skills – starting at the age of twelve. GVCC supports the Evans Scholars Program which helps deserving young caddies who are high achievers with limited financial means attend the University of Minnesota – with full tuition and housing paid. There have been forty-nine Evans Scholars alumni who caddied at GVCC and currently eight scholars who caddied at GVCC are attending this academic year. A great number of GVCC’s Evans Scholars are from Golden Valley and many have returned to the City after college. GVCC IS A STEWARD OF THE ENVIRONMENT GVCC is committed to the environment. GVCC has approximately 135 acres of open space. GVCC’s property provides food, water and habitat for many types of wildlife. GVCC plants and maintains blooming annuals, perennials and shrubs, which provide food and habitat for honey bees, butterflies and hummingbirds. GVCC collaborates with the Bluebird Society to maintain birdhouses across its property. GVCC has converted significant areas of its property to naturalized areas. GVCC embraces Bassett Creek, which winds though the property, maintaining a chemical and fertilizer-free buffer zone along the entire perimeter of the Creek. GVCC maintains the 1800+ trees on its property. In addition, GVCC’s staff works closely with the City Forester to identify and promptly remove any diseased trees. THE CITY ASSISTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN In consultation with City Staff, approximately two years ago GVCC identified a very small portion of its property (approximately 2.25 out of its approximately 150 acres) located along Country Club Drive which was not critical to its current or future use (the “Vacant Parcel”). GVCC marketed the Vacant Parcel to a select group of premier multi-family home developers. After extensive evaluation, and again in consultation with the City Staff, GVCC selected Applicant. GVCC and Applicant recently entered into a Purchase Agreement for GVCC to sell the Vacant Parcel to Applicant. The Purchase Agreement requires Applicant to develop the Vacant Parcel in accordance with the attached Site Plan once Applicant receives the necessary approvals from the City. The Site Plan was developed with extensive input from City Staff. The Site Plan provides for the construction of ninety-seven (97) cooperative homes in a six (6) story building with ample underground parking for vehicles and bicycles, with a single entrance on Country Club Drive and with connections to the adjacent Luce Line Trail. Cooperative homes in the development are intended for purchase by owners 62 years of age or older. The Purchase Agreement requires that ten (10) of the homes comply with the City’s Mixed-Income Housing Policy and that the development meet the strict architectural guidelines and development standards of GVCC. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT On December 2, a meeting of the residents of the neighborhood was held at City Hall. The meeting was well attended by neighbors and a number of other City residents. The Applicant answered all of the questions posed to it. The development plan received broad support at the meeting. December 8, 2021 Page 3 1014154\309432838.v3 THE CITY WILL BENEFIT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT The benefits of the development to the City of Golden Valley are significant. The development will continue to improve the immediate neighborhood with ninety-seven (97) new cooperative homes. The development will bring new families to the City, each of whom will own their own cooperative home. It will also allow existing residents of the City to transition to this type of home and remain in Golden Valley rather than to relocate elsewhere. Ten (10) of those cooperative homes will be made available for purchase at values consistent with 80% of adjusted median income levels so they align with the City’s Mixed-Income Housing Policy. The development will be limited to owners 62 years of age or older. These factors all meet the goals and objectives of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide home ownership opportunities, senior housing and affordable homes along the Luce Line Trail and within walking distance to high frequency transit service at Douglas Drive and Highway 55 and to downtown Golden Valley. The sale will result in the Vacant Parcel no longer being taxed for property tax purposes on a “Green Acres” basis. As a result, property taxes for the Vacant Parcel will be increased from $1,000 annually to an amount in excess of $400,000 annually.2 Moreover, GVCC will reinvest all of the proceeds from the sale of the Vacant Parcel to Applicant into improvements to GVCC’s property. This will allow GVCC to: preserve and protect its nearly 150 acres of open space and natural areas; improve its amenities in order to remain competitive; continue its role in the City of being a good neighbor, an environmental steward, a top employer, home to hundreds of the City’s residents, and one of the hallmarks of the City; and continue to pay substantial local taxes, such as property and sales taxes, the proceeds of which inure to the benefit of the City. GVCC respectfully requests that you approve the Applications for all of the reasons set forth in the Applications, the City Staff Reports recommending approval of the Applications and this letter. GVCC has enjoyed its relationship with the City of Golden Valley for over a century and looks forward to that relationship continuing for at least another 100 years. Sincerely, Board of Directors Golden Valley Country Club Melanie Dunleavy, President Tom Conlin, Director Mark Zeman, Vice President Mike Herring, Director Shawn Messner, Treasurer Thomas Kozlak, Director Terri Coopersmith, Secretary Glenn Sansburn, Director Joe Komarek, Director Enclosures (Site Plan) cc with enclosures, via email: 2 At closing, GVCC will also pay the Green Acres tax of approximately $65,000. December 8, 2021 Page 4 1014154\309432838.v3 Council Member Elect Denise LaMere-Anderson Commissioner Lauren Pockl Commissioner Adam Brookins Commissioner Andy Johnson Commissioner Rich Baker Commissioner Sophia Ginis Commissioner Mike Ruby Commissioner Chuck Segelbaum Jason Zimmerman Myles Campbell Tim Nichols Ben Landhauser 1014154\309432838.v3 SITE PLAN Benefits of the development plan • The City benefits from new housing which will continue to improve the immediate neighborhood with 97 new cooperative homes. • Ten of the cooperative homes will be made available for purchase at values consistent with 80% of adjusted median income levels to align with the City’s mixed-income housing policy. • The development will bring new families to the City. • The development will allow existing residents of the City to transition to this type of home and remain in Golden Valley rather than elsewhere. • New housing for residents over age 62 who want to stay in City but downsize. • The development will result in the Vacant Parcel no longer being taxed for property tax purposes on a “Green Acres” basis. As a result, this will add $400,000 annually to real estate tax revenues. • New housing would be accessible to the Luce Line trail and within walking distance to high frequency transit service at Douglas Drive and Highway 55 and to downtown Golden Valley. • These factors all meet the goals and objectives of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide home ownership opportunities, senior housing and affordable homes in Golden Valley. • GVCC will preserve and protect its nearly 145 acres of open space and natural areas and continue its role in the City of being a good neighbor. GVCC is an environmental steward and a top employer for the City of Golden Valley. GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB Good for the City of Golden Valley 2.25 acre land sale for housing development at Country Club Drive Dear City of Golden Valley: I am a member of Golden Valley Country Club and a tax-paying resident of the City of Golden Valley for over 35 years (home at 1305 Spring Valley Road, GV). My husband and I joined GVCC after we moved to this City- not only for the golf, but also because of its down-to-earth, welcoming atmosphere- one that welcomed men and women, children and people of color. This is important to us as our children are both adopted from India and we value an inclusive culture. The Club has continued to increase family activities throughout the years, and we are finding more young families joining and moving to the City of Golden Valley as a result. In fact, our now 32-year-old son and his fiancé are looking to buy their first home in Golden Valley so they can be near the Club and its amenities. I write because Our Club is on the cusp of a terrific opportunity to make a sale of 2.25 acres which is a small parcel of our 145 acres. This land fronts Country Club Drive and the Luce Line Trail. We do not need it for the golf course. The buyer is reputable and plans an upscale 97-unit multi-unit housing cooperative for seniors. The proceeds of this sale will help our Club stay competitive in the private golf club market. Without it, we could end up lagging behind our competitors in offerings and amenities, threatening the future of our 106-year-old Club, a fixture within the City of Golden Valley. Our Club is the single-largest landholder in the City and we employ 175 persons, many of whom live in Golden Valley. We even employ the youth in the City, many of whom are employed as caddies or servers at the Club. Our Club prepared the following Fact Sheet, which I am sharing with you as an attachment. Just to mention one highlight, the sale of this small parcel will yield a housing development which will add $400,000 to the City’s property tax base, without losing any environmental attributes of the Club’s 145 acres. Please vote in favor of advancing this project. It is good for future of the Club and the City. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Marron Dear GV Planning Commissioners, I am a member of Golden Valley Country Club. Our Club is on the cusp of a terrific opportunity to make a sale of 2.25 acres which is a small parcel of our 145 acres. This land fronts Country Club Drive and the Luce Line Trail. We do not need it for the golf course. The buyer is reputable, and plans an upscale 97 - unit multi-unit housing cooperative for seniors. The proceeds of this sale will help our Club stay competitive in the private golf club market. Without it, we could end up lagging behind our competitors in offerings and amenities, threatening the future of our 106-year-old Club, a fixture within the City of Golden Valley. Our Club is the single-largest landholder in the City and we employ 175 persons, many of whom live in Golden Valley. We even employ the youth in the City, many of whom are employed as caddies or servers at the Club. Our Club prepared the following Fact Sheet, which I am sharing with you as an attachment. Just to mention one highlight, the sale of this small parcel will yield a housing development which will add $400,000 to the City’s property tax base, without losing any environmental attributes of the Club’s 145 acres. Please vote in favor of advancing this proj ect. It is good for the Club and good for the City. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Ryan Kingstedt ryan@kingstedt.com Hi, I am writing in support of a land sale by Golden Valley Country Club (GVCC) to become part of a proposed housing development with about 100 new cooperative homes. First let me introduce myself. My wife and I have lived in Golden Valley for 46 years. I remember the adjacent large parcel when it was Pako, Tennant and then Optum. It is a shame it has been sitting vacant for so long. I have served on what was then the Human Rights Commission and also the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Board. I coached and served on the Board of Golden Valley Girls softball. I have watched three new developments built near my home across from Lion's Park. Each of them added families with children to our neighbor and made our community more vibrant. Each of them added to the city tax base. I understand the proposed development near GVCC will add about $400,000 annually to the tax base. As a resident I certainly like that. It does much more than that. I remember when Golden Valley Commons was built. A national pharmacy was being recruited as a tenant. They wanted a drive thru pharmacy window, which is actually quite common now. The city rejected the concept because they wanted the shopping center to be pedestrian friendly. Well, the proposed development is within easy walking distance and will be a wonderful source of additional revenue for Golden Valley merchants. In addition, City Hall, the Post Office and Library are also within easy walking distance. If GVCC gets some new members that would be terrific too! I will confess, the land sale will benefit GVCC. It will help us add amenities and keep our club competitive in a very difficult market. We proudly employ about 175 people, many of whom live in the city. We also offer wonderful opportunities for youth to have summer jobs as caddies. Many of our caddies have gone on to receive Evans Scholarships at the University. I have been a member at GVCC for about thirty years and have made many new friends. I can't begin to estimate how many miles I have walked or how many golf balls I have hit into the creek. We have a fact sheet that you will probably receive from other members who write in support of this land sale. If you don't receive one and want it, let me know. I am trying to make my request a little more personal. I love the City of Golden Valley. It has been a fabulous community to live and raise our family. My grandkids now enjoy the same park that their mom played at. Please vote in favor of advancing this project. I truly believe it is good for the City and GVCC. Thanks very much for your consideration. I am sorry I am unable to attend the meeting on Thursday. -- Bob Mayeron 612-868-7227 Dear City of Golden Valley: I am a member of Golden Valley Country Club [and a resident of the City of Golden Valley]. Our Club is on the cusp of a terrific opportunity to make a sale of 2.25 acres which is a small parcel of our 145 acres. This land fronts Country Club Drive and the Luce Line Trail. We do not need it for the golf course. The buyer is reputable, and plans an upscale 97 -unit multi-unit housing cooperative for seniors. The proceeds of this sale will help our Club stay competitive in the private golf club market. Without it, we could end up lagging behind our competitors in offerings and amenities, threatening the future of our 106-year-old Club, a fixture within the City of Golden Valley. Our Club is the single-largest landholder in the City and we employ 175 persons, many of whom live in Golden Valley. We even employ the youth in the City, many of whom are employed as caddies or servers at the Club. Our Club prepared the following Fact Sheet, which I am sharing with you as an attachment. Just to mention one highlight, the sale of this small parcel will yield a housing development which will add $400,000 to the City’s property tax base, without losing any environmental attributes of the Club’s 145 acres. Please vote in favor of advancing this project. It is good for the Club and good for the City. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Carter Rieckhoff My wife and I have been residents of Golden Valley for 42 years and plan on remaining so. We have seen many changes over the years. There have been many residential developments built recently none of which have provided for quality senior housing.This proposal helps address that need. We both strongly support the proposed sale and development of the two parcels of the Golden Valley Country Club property. Aside from the potential tax benefits to the city and the obvious lack of any adverse impact on the area, the addition of senior housing in that area is extremely attractive and provides an option to retain our senior population. I urge you all to support this proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, N. M. Segal Dear Council members, I immigrated to MN and bought myself a small local home with views not unlike my home Country. Golden Valley and its open areas of green space reminded me of my home in Scotland. The proposal and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to build a 6-story building would be a blight on the historic Golden Valley landscape. A little history on my 105 year old home and the vicinity. I have the abstract of title for my land and the surrounding land dated 1856 to the public from the United States. The Varner’s are the founders of Golden Valley and there are 6 pages of Varner’s on the abstract title. (see image attached, I donated a copy to the GV History Society). William H Varner is quoted in the Country Club book ‘A century of Excellence,’ that he looked from the hill (current Country club location) at the valley covered in golden daffodils and said, “my valley, my Golden Valley” and so this beautiful area became known. The valley view would be obstructed for everyone by a 6-story development. The little house I currently live in was built in 1917 to provide a home for the greenkeeper. The proposal of a 6-story development is more than double what currently exists for commercial buildings in our area, is less than 500 feet away and would dwarf my home. My neighbors and I work from home and 16 months to two years of construction noise would be an issue for all of us. When I moved here, I felt a great sense of pride in Golden Valley’s beautiful green spaces (albeit mostly private land across from me) and majestic oaks. Not two weeks after I moved in, the majestic oaks on Country Club were cut down to create a bike path, build a couple of tennis courts and add a chain link fence. Now a developer is proposing the views be further blighted by an unimaginative 6-story building that looks like the storage unit that was built in the industrial park. Why would this proposal be considered in this historic neighborhood when no other building in the vicinity is more than 2 or 3 stories above ground and would destroy the many majestic old oaks that Golden Valley is known for? We are supposed to be preserving our green spaces as a “green step” city. My understanding is that the proposal would provide nearly 100 apartments for people 62 or older with nearly 200 parking spaces and ranging in value from $300-$800K. A quick google search states that Golden Valley and surrounding areas have over 80 of such facilities. The target demographic for the apartments is retirees who golf. The club members in attendance at the public meeting made it clear that the co-op would attract 80+ new members, which leads me to believe this property will be for 'snowbird' golf club members only. The developer is also working closely with the Country Club and ensuring there is no inconvenience to members but not providing the same courtesy to the families who live on Country Club Dr. As for the proposed entry and exit points of this proposal on to Country Club Drive, we only just reclaimed the street with the access from Douglas Street minimized. This does not prevent people accessing Country Club Drive from HWY 55 and using the street as a speedway putting the children and pets living on the street at great risk (I lost a pet to a speeding car that did not stop). Adding an additional 200 cars is very concerning to the families on Country Club Dr. It is also a concern that a traffic study would not be done. A city engineer is quoted as saying "With the number of units being proposed, and the typical number of trips per day generated by a senior building, there is no concern that it would unreasonably increase congestion”. I respectfully disagree, the developer stated numerous times that this would be a very active community of members. The exit from Country club to Rhode Island or 55 is already challenging and common-sense states that 200 parking spaces mean 200 cars unless the proposal suggests the seniors would walk to the nearby post office and local businesses? While I am not opposed to the development of apartments, especially in the Optum location, I am opposed to the proposed application for the conditional use permit on Country Club Drive and access points, the destruction of the topography and oaks in Golden Valley. Please also keep in mind the proposed future development of the UHG property and it’s impacts to residents. I hope to have your support. Kind regards, Suzanne Forward 6745 Country Club Dr Reference: https://www.goldenvalleycountryclub.com/our-club/history Concern about New Housing Complex on Country Club Drive December 8, 2021 Greetings GV Council Members, I’m writing to express opposition to the proposed development of the six-story senior living complex slated to be built on Country Club Drive. Main concerns are: • Increased volume of traffic on Country Club Drive • Loss of green space and old-growth trees • Height of building The increased traffic on Country Club Drive resulting from a hundred or so new neighbors would bring a higher risk of accidents involving children at play and animals of all kinds. The lack of traffic congestion and noise it brings is one of the reasons the Country Club Drive stretch is so attractive. Speaking for my wife and me, we are more than familiar with our neighbors and folks living in this area. We often find ourselves meeting and welcoming new comers to the neighborhood too. We boast of how cool it is to live here because of the serenity and safety of the area, and folks are quick to agree of the advantages of this area not being a crowded neighborhood. A popular topic of conversation is that Golden Valley is a pet friendly neighborhood. Many people have cats and dogs, and care for them responsibly. However, sometimes pets accidentally get free of their yards and run in to the streets. Because of this, it is a comfort to know there is very little traffic on and around Country Club Drive. Another reason this section of Golden Valley is so attractive is the green space and abundance of old- growth trees. It is not block after block of rows of living units on a grid. The lack of apartment and condominium complexes is a major draw to the neighborhood. Golden Valley houses have large yards and gardens with majestic oaks, maples and elms. The Country Club and golf green features and maintains beautiful wide-open landscapes that attract a variety of birds and other wildlife, not to mention the golfers and other people from all over the Twin Cities who are attracted to the Country Club’s year-round events. The length of Country Club Drive, from the water tower in downtown Golden Valley to Douglas currently only has one building higher than three stories. The proposed six story complex would be out of place. The vast majority of this stretch consists of houses with spacious yards, and not cubicles stacked six stories high. This all makes for an attractive and peaceful place to live. A neighborhood we would like to preserve just the way it is. My sincere thanks for your time and attention, Malcolm Forward December 8, 2021 Stephen M. Tatzmann 555 Varner Cir N Golden Valley, MN 55427 Golden Valley Planning Department, Jason Zimmerman Council Members - Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Sanberg Mayor Shep Harris 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55247 RE: Concerning Development at Golden Valley Country Club “They will need to evolve and at times transcend tradition to survive in the decades to come.” This was an assertion published in an article by Forbes magazine in November of 2020, entitled “The Country Club of the Future.” It is my opinion, Golden Valley Country Club (the Club), in seeking to parcel off parts of its land in both the northwest and southeast corners of the property, is neither evolving nor transcending in order to meet financial demands. Rather, it is asking the neighboring community to absorb a burden to keep it financially secure, so the Club may continue to conduct business as usual. I have lived at 555 Varner Cir N for five years as of this New Year’s Eve. My property is less than 250ft from the southern border of the Club. Not once in those five years have I received a neighborly mailer from the Club, one of the city’s largest land owners. I’ve never received an invitation to attend an open house or been invited by a member to tour its facilities. Every year, Schuller’s Tavern donates a keg of beer to to our Neighborhood Night Out. I’ve personally never seen a representative of the Club there. Regularly, especially during the summer, the Club will host events that can be clearly heard from my property, running as late as 1 am. When my neighbors host events at their homes, they’ll drop a note in my box a day or two before to let me know and request that I contact them if they’re too loud. Golden Valley Country Club is NOT a “good neighbor”. I enjoy the greenspace the Club provides, juxtaposed to the constant hum of Highway 55 that is visible from my front door. I don’t have issues with the game of golf, but I don’t like being asked to inconvenience myself and my neighbors to contribute to the affluence of a private organization. When neighbors of mine asked the developers at last week’s neighborhood meeting if we would be impacted by construction while the new six-story building is being built, they scoffed and said “no”. Currently, when the Club has large events, we routinely find overflow parking spilling out onto Jersey Avenue - a street I am currently using to teach my four-year-old daughter how to ride her bike. Why am I not to expect construction laborers to be parked there as well? Many of my neighbors are very concerned about the traffic impact of the new development. Jason Zimmerman and the developers have been quick to dismiss traffic concerns, saying a study isn’t necessary and that residents of the development, due to their demographic, will not be traveling at peak hours of the day, so there isn’t a need to do a traffic study. Anyone who routinely turns south onto Rhode Island Avenue from Country Club Drive, as I do, can tell you that intersection is already awkward at best, anytime of the day, but particularly hours when the post office is open. Removing old growth oak trees to make way for a 72-foot building facade also does not seem to keep with the city’s green initiatives or being neighborly to surrounding landowners who’s homes pre- date the Club. There are plenty of vacant lots able to be developed for high-density residential use that don’t require the removal of existing trees species. I, for one, am completely on board with the rumor I have heard stating the city wants the United Health Group property to be parceled for mixed retail and residential use. Moreover, when I asked Jason Zimmerman at the neighborhood meeting, what’s to stop the Club from continuing to piecemeal its land asset, Mr. Zimmerman replied that he didn’t think it was a concern because, “unless they start cutting into greens” he didn’t see that there was much more land to give. The conclusion of the Forbes article I cited at the beginning of this letter, was that the “Country Club of the Future” is virtual. Meaning online. Meaning the Club will not have a need for greens in the future. If you don’t think this is possible, please see this November 30th Twitter post from the Club referencing its new golf simulator and how much the members “are loving it”. Golden Valley Country Club needs to evolve and transcend, instead of inflicting the burden of its financial needs on its neighbors. Thank you, I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Stephen M. Tatzmann 555 Varner Cir N Golden Valley, MN 55427 stevetatz@protonmail.com Golden Valley City Hall, attn: Council Member Gillian Rosenquist 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Council Member Rosenquist, We’re writing you to express our reservations with the six-story residential complex being proposed by Artessa Development, LLC on Country Club Drive. We live just two doors down from the proposed site. While we are new homeowners in the neighborhood, we think we will be among the most impacted by the decisions being made and hope this letter is considered with that in mind. Firstly, it’s worth noting that we’re not opposed to the development in general. We do see value in adding senior housing to Golden Valley. Maybe even in that spot. Our top concerns, however, are the impact on traffic and safety on Country Club Drive and Highway 55, the lack of affordable units in the building, and the height of the building. We think that the residents of the area deserve to have a traffic study conducted. Congestion will certainly increase, the impact of which is unclear. More importantly, we think it will potentially cause unsafe driving conditions at the intersection of Highway 55 and Douglas Drive, and the intersection of Highway 55 and Glendale because you are unable to go Eastbound on Highway 55 from Country Club Drive. Many of our neighbors have taken issue with the increased traffic this project would add to Rhode Island Avenue from new residents trying to access Highway 55. However, we’ve observed that from where we live on the East side of Country Club Drive—including at the site of this proposed development—drivers looking to go Eastbound on Highway 55 are instructed by GPS to go West on 55 and make a U-turn at Glendale Avenue. With the high speed on 55, this is already a hazardous route, and increasing U-turns at that intersection could increase crashes. Also, turning onto Country Club Drive from 55 requires you to signal your lane change through the Douglas Drive intersection and quickly decelerate. The turn lane is very short, the distance between the intersection and the turn lane is short, and you’re travelling at highway speeds. Increasing the amount of traffic on that turn would unquestionably cause unsafe conditions at the intersection with Douglas Drive. At their presentation, the developers provided anecdotal reassurances that it would all be fine, but they’ve got too much skin in the game to be considered trustworthy sources of information. They were also flippant and dismissive when addressing people’s concerns. A traffic study should be conducted to give the residents in the area something more concrete and unbiased. We also think this whole traffic issue could easily be remedied if the entrance and exit was on Golden Valley Road, which would be safer. Additionally, Golden Valley Road is larger and has better access to the rest of the city’s infrastructure. Our next concern is the affordability of the units. The developers highlighted two affordable housing units per floor. At a time when we have an affordable housing crisis, do we really need more luxury condos that have the bare minimum of affordable units? We’re deeply disappointed that lower income residents of the area are being left in the cold while this building expressly caters to people who are currently housed but want to downsize. We would much rather see something that shelters unhoused people than wealthy, stably housed residents of the city. It feels like a very lucrative endeavor for the country club and the developers without considering the needs of everyday residents in the area. Lastly, the building is too tall for this area and would dwarf any other building nearby. Even limiting to five stories would be a great improvement. We would also encourage you to look critically at the visual design of the building. This might be a small thing, but in an area full of historic homes, the new development design is, for lack of a better word, busy and kind of ugly. We implore you to push back against this development and question if it’s the best thing for the people who live in the area. I was very disappointed that no representative from the country club was present at the developer’s presentation. It seems like they want to reap the benefits of this development while pushing the downsides, particularly the traffic and unsightly, large size of the building, onto their neighbors. Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to seeing you at the upcoming planning commission meeting. Respectfully, Bob Plantenberg & Tara Bannow 6809 Country Club Drive Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-227-3809 & 319-471-0119 Hello, I believe Golden Valley has a pretty good grasp of what is good for the community as a whole. I also understand that change is inevitable and change in the Douglas Drive Corridor is almost certain to happen. The redevelopment and potential development of the properties on the south end and how they are handled are being watched by many residents and not just in the immediate neighborhood. My concerns for the Artessa project: • The developer repeatedly describes potential tenants as “very active”. Traffic flow is already awkward, if not dangerous at times, in the proposed development area(s). To go east from the east end of Country Club Drive you have to make a dangerous U-turn on Highway 55. U-turns are rarely recommended on highways and I personally am lucky to be alive after an Uber ride that almost killed me. The alternative is to drive .75 miles westward on Country Club to join Rhode Island. At this location there are probably six or more uncontrolled traffic access points from parking lots and streets within one block. There is no traffic light where Country Club feeds onto Rhode Island and increased traffic from Country Club will only aggravate the situation. • Since the area is currently designated a green space, I would hope they can save many of the trees on the project property. • The height of the proposed Artessa development is not in keeping with the surrounding area. • Feedback from the country club does not appear to offer much in the way of compromise. Selling a slightly larger parcel could possibly allow the footprint to expand slightly and keep the Artessa project to five levels. Access to Douglas Drive could alleviate traffic issues. However, it seems the country club wants to have it all their way. The Golden Valley Country Club does not support the connection (to Douglas Drive). In a letter to the city, General Manager Don Kovacovich said he supported the project to redevelop the property (Optum) as long as it didn't include changes to Country Club Drive. “We feel any road would have a negative impact to our members, the playability of our golf course, and financially due to the cost of additional netting needed to protect a road,” Kovacovich said. I’ll bet that netting is wicked expensive! If the country club truly cannot afford to buy netting, I would think they would be more willing to compromise on Country Club Drive connecting to Douglas Drive. They might also have to reassess how the club has handled their financial matters including building their $21.7 million clubhouse (calculated in today’s dollars). Please work toward a compromise that will be beneficial to more of Golden Valley. Compromise might save this project, but if not, there will be other opportunities. Golden Valley is a gem of a city in a very attractive location. The city will continue to attract development partners willing to compromise and work on suitable projects that will be complementary to the city and the surrounding neighborhoods. Best Regards, Corby Harty Respected City Council Members, I chose Golden Valley as my home 2.5 years ago after living and working downtown Mpls for 25 years. After looking at many areas there were specific reasons for choosing Golden Valley; the strong sense of community, the amazing green space filled with 100 + year old trees, walking and bike paths, culture and the safety of small town living along with the convenience of being a quick commute from downtown. I continue to be charmed by the neighbors, residents and the community’s strong sense of pride, watching out for each other doing what’s best for the city and supporting each other. Many of the reasons why I chose Golden Valley are now at risk with the proposed six story Country Club development. I understand that change is constant and the Golden Valley Country Club has every right to sell their property, however what has been proposed is not in the best interest of this community and poses the following risks. 1) Safety - will be compromised for all walkers, bikers and drivers if the Country Club does not offer alternative and viable ways to travel to and from the proposed development site during construction, and will continue to increase once the new residen ts move in. Country Club Drive is already very busy, and traffic moves through quickly and can get easily congested. The proposed development could potentially increase beyond 200 + more residents using this road at any given time, and even walking to the city center can become treacherous for everyone. The developer advised the residents will be “very active” at 62 + community so traffic increases are a given. Additional Considerations: • Access to HWY 55 is currently limited to two travel routes from Varner Circle and the surrounding area, and is not easily accessible from Country Club Drive. The intersections are already dangerous with cross traffic entering from multiple directions. We need alternative options for travel to open up Douglas or the Country Club can open their club entrance to Golden Valley Drive. • The amount of time to commute downtown and anywhere else will increase and not be efficient or convenient as the highway and roads are not set up for the traffic increases and flow as they now exist. • We’re currently living in a pandemic where many of us work from home and will continue to do so once we get to the other side. Traffic will only continue to increase, when residents start commuting to work again and poses greater risk and safety concerns. 2) Preservation and integrity of the AMAZING landscape 100+ year trees that make Golden Valley so distinctly unique and beautiful. If those trees are removed it negatively impacts the landscape and the integrity of what makes GV so special and rich in its heritage. • Where will the displaced wildlife will go that reside amongst us and surrounding the country club if their environment is replaced by the proposed by this out of compliance proposed development? • After a friend visited earlier this year, he immediately started his search for a home in Golden Valley and moved here because of the green space and historical beauty. If we don’t preserve this we will lose the integrity of our community and its history 3) Rezoning - to accommodate a 6 story development also compromises the integrity of area’s landscape and community, especially after seeing the proposed design. It would be my hope that they design housing to complement and enhance the golf course and residential areas. • Instead of the proposed rezoning, it would make sense to meet the city’s current zoning compliance requirements and build out instead of up, to make it financially feasible for the Developer. The Country Club has more land they could sell to then meet current zoning requirements. • There are many other areas for lease and for sale on Douglas that could be redeveloped, and close to the golf course which could meet the Developers needs while preserving the area. 4) Trust and Transparency – This entire situation was poorly communicated and managed. We received a notice addressed to “resident” regarding the proposed rezoning of our residence and neighborhood, without receiving any other details, and left to wonder why. We live within 500 feet of the Country Club and never received anything from the Country Club, the developer or the city advising “why” or “who” was proposed change. It concerns me that this has happened so quickly with such little disregard for the community. • The Country Club stands to gain everything, while little to no consideration has been given to the residents who have much to lose and yet, during the middle of a pandemic. However, it appears that a great deal of consideration has been given to the Country Club members to make sure their golf games, parties, swim and tennis time and all of the rest of their “play-time” is not disrupted over the next few years as the developer outlined clearly. I’ve yet to understand the benefit to the community as the Developer insisted as their current plans exist. For the reasons mentioned above and more, it is my hope that the Planning Committee and the City Council will do what’s right for the community by denying the proposed zoning approval for the Country Club development. Please give consideration to other viable solutions that will be nefit the entire community beyond the Country Club’s financial gains. It is my hope that the country club as well as the community can thrive together, and that the focus shifts to how we can protect and maintain the safety for all who live and spend here, while preserving the integrity of our homes, neighborhoods, Country Club and and the land around us. Change is inevitable but I ask that you hear our voices in the Varner, Schuller and Country Club neighborhoods to make the right decisions for the entire community, and preserve the legacy that the Varner and Schuller ancestors that left us all to protect. Respectfully and Sincerely, Blythe Stillwell bwellstill@gmail.com 521 Varner Circle 612.695.8350 Dear Golden Valley City Council Members and Planning Commissioner Zimmerman: I am aware that Golden Valley needs good quality, affordable housing and I support that goal. The proposed senior apartment does not really fulfill that objective, however, with only ten "affordable" units. In addition, my deep concern about the proposed project is the traffic congestion it will bring to a peaceful, nature-filled neighborhood. With the Montessori School, Highway 55 and Douglass Drive, and Perpich Arts High School all concentrated in that area, I worry about traffic accidents and increased pollution from vehicles. Finally, that area of land is where Golden Valley got its start. It seems to me we should honor what remains of the natural setting and the history of our city in some way other than having a large apartment plunked there. I don't want to be a NIMBY but it seems to me there are much better places to put a six-story apartment. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Margaret R. Beegle 550 Varner Circle North Golden Valley, MN 55427 (763) 542-1860 Dear Golden Valley City Council, I have lived in Golden Valley on Country Club Drive for over 33 years. Over the years I have seen a lot of changes in Golden Valley. The current proposal for the Country Club Driving range is one that should not happen. I am surprised to hear that the Golden Valley CC is having financial difficulties. Especially when the parking lot is pretty full nd there is a lot of golfers on the course. I do not feel the design is something that would fit in the Schuller neighborhood. The level of traffic would increase and there would be more traffic outside of rush hour. I think the Country club should sell the land so it would be included in a residential development of the Optum property. The access would be off Douglas. Which would not affect the current traffic. Sincerely Chuck Fox Good morning, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed condo building on the current GVCC driving range. My husband and I and our 2 children live on Country Club Drive. We initially purchased our home assuming the country club would be there forever and we’d never have to worry about additional neighbors across the street. We never fathomed the club would start parceling off their land and selling to developers. We strongly oppose another condo complex in the area, especially if the entrance were to be on Country Club Drive. We are very concerned about the significant increase in traffic on our little neighborhood streets and disappointed at the thought of the proposed giant eye sore in place of the current green space. It would be such a shame to destroy the century old trees and rolling green space to be replaced with a building that looks like a storage unit or hospital. A smaller 2- 3 story, more visually appealing complex that would compliment the old world charm of the club’s exterior would be a much more suitable alternative for the neighborhood and location, especially if accessed via Douglas Dr or the country club driveway and out to Golden Valley Rd with no entrance on Country Club Dr. Thank you, Jessica Scheff 7111 Country Club Drive Attention: Golden Valley Neighbors. The Country Club is selling the driving range land to a developer proposing a 6-story apartment building with 192 parking spots. Access will be via Country Club Drive. If approved this will cause lots of heavy equipment going up and down Country Club Drive and possibly adding up to 200 or more cars traveling this route. If you disapprove of the proposal to change the land use and zoning of the property from institutional to high density residential and the request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 6th floor, please sign the attached petition. Please also attend the Informal Planning Commission Meeting at City Hall on December 13th at 7pm and let your thoughts be known. COMMENTS • Kenneth Surbaugh Dec 09, 2021 The proposed development does not reflect the character of the existing neighborhood. The driving range and adjacent golf course provides for the preservation of open space that gives the community an identity. A large residential complex would change the character of the neighbor with increased traffic and higher density housing is not a use that fits with the existing low density housing and small business. Please maintain the natural integrity of the neighborhood by rejecting this proposal. • Kimberly Surbaugh Dec 08, 2021 Country club drive is not adequate to handle this amount of traffic. • Ken walz Dec 08, 2021 Forever change the solitude of this neighborhood • Kay Schroeder Dec 08, 2021 Height of building is not in keeping with the surroundings and traffic will be a concern • Jeff S Dec 08, 2021 We have enough apartments in the city as it is. Put single family homes or even townhomes in that space versus some six story eyesore. • Kris anderson Dec 08, 2021 Main concerns here are traffic issues on Country Club drive not only during construction but moving forward. Any construction here must include through road to Douglas to divert much of this directly to 55 or north. • Esther Villeneuve Dec 08, 2021 Too big of a development for the proposed location. • Anonymous Dec 08, 2021 This plan will dramatically change the character of this quiet neighborhood and our experience living near it as a resident will be negatively impacted. I strongly oppose this plan. • Anonymous Dec 07, 2021 Traffic concern on Country Club Drive! • Anne Melendez Dec 07, 2021 NO - too many reasons to list • Marcia Anderson Dec 06, 2021 I oppose the height and massive scale of this proposed development in a residential neighborhood. It will dwarf nearby homes. It will destroy trees and loom over trees remaining, becoming an eyesore and an environmental deficit.. It should not be granted a zoning change. • Hannah Thacker Dec 06, 2021 As a member of the community with a young child and another arriving shortly, it is of great concern that traffic will be increasing on this road. The design to enter the road is already poor at best, and encourages a dangerous speed when exiting Highway 55. There are also multiple businesses along Country Club Drive that serve as medical rehabilitation homes. The residents there deserve a safe place to access the sidewalks and cross to utilize the Luce Line Trail safely, since the city has already neglected any cautionary signs or crosswalks. I doubt that by adding traffic on such narrow lane roads with heavy pedestrian traffic on both sides is the proper or responsible decision to be made. • Chuck Gox Dec 06, 2021 I am surprised to hear that the Golden Valley CC is having financial difficulties. Especially when the parking lot is pretty full nd there is a lot of golfers on the course. I do not feel the design is something that would fit in the Schuller neighborhood. The level of traffic would increase and there would be more traffic outside of rush hour. I think the Country club should sell the land an make it part of the development of the Optum property. The access would be off Douglas. Which would bot affect the traffic. • Hiebert Cate Dec 05, 2021 This kind of stuff is one of the reasons we moved a year or so ago. This council will do anything to turn a buck...even go against the city plan they requisitioned 18 months ago • Laura Monson Dec 05, 2021 We do not need this. We need trees and the green space. • Suzanne Forward Dec 04, 2021 A point I neglected to mention, I am also self employed and work from home and worry about the construction noise. My neighbor, a journalist works from home, their immediate neighbors are teachers who work from home. I would like to see potential noise studies done for our 100 year old homes in a neighborhood of people who currently work from home due to, and before Covid. • Joel Sather Dec 03, 2021 Now that I'm working from home, any additional noise on Country Club Drive would be very disruptive. • Todd Gaglione Dec 02, 2021 This is a very peaceful residential homeowner/family neighborhood, and one of the biggest reasons to reside in this area is because of the neighborhood being as such. A 6 story apartment building would absolutely destroy this area. Build some small homes or townhomes instead...or better yet keep as is and sell historical golf course to another golf company as they tried to a few years ago... • Jessica Scheff Dec 02, 2021 My husband and I and our 2 children live on Country Club Drive. We strongly oppose another apartment complex or condo complex in the area, especially if the entrance were to be on Country Club Drive. We are very concerned about the increase in traffic on our little neighborhood streets and disappointed at the thought of the proposed giant eye sore in place of the current green space. A charming 2-story townhome complex, similar to the nearby units on Golden Valley Rd, would be a much more suitable alternative for the neighborhood and location, especially if accessed via Douglas Dr with no entrance on Country Club Dr. • Mike Dec 01, 2021 Too BIG! • Robin Scholer Dec 01, 2021 I am opposed to yet another condo/apartment building adding more people and more traffic. We need more green space. • Corby Harty Nov 26, 2021 Traffic access in this area is already challenging. Difficult to access eastbound Hwy 55 and no Hwy 55 access from the north side of Glenwood. Will changes to the traffic pattern be made? • Suzanne Forward Nov 24, 2021 I am concerned as more young families move into this area that children are at risk. Country Club is already a speedway being a long straight and very dark road. The police also use it to catch up to and cut off speeders on 55 at night. I lost a pet to a speeding car that did not stop, imagine that was a child. I also do not think a 6 story building is appropriate for the area, no other building close is that high and it will be a blight on our skyline much like that monstrosity of a storage unit across Douglas. Keep everything 2 stories high at most. • Harmony Bennett Nov 24, 2021 This would drastically change our peaceful neighborhood. A townhome development would be much preferred. To add that many vehicles to Country Club is not a good thing. • Margaret Beegle Nov 24, 2021 It is an ill-conceived plan to put a large complex right by Highway 55 and Douglas Drive. The congestion would be a huge problem. • Chuck Gox Nov 23, 2021 I live on Country Club Drive. There is enough traffic, we don't need any more! • Stephen Tatzmann Nov 23, 2021 Until the Country Club begins acting like a member of the community, as opposed to an elitist enclave, I, as a resident of Golden Valley, and neighbor of the property, am inclined to voice opposition to any further development of the property. In the five years I have lived on Varner Circle, I have not once been approached by the Club or any of its members to join or even view its facilities. All I know of the Club is the sign at its entrance which tells me not to trespass and the loud events that can regularly be heard after 10pm from my back porch. Furthermore, as I live 250 feet from the Club property, I would like to know why I wasn’t informed by either the city or Club of them parceling off their property both in the location in question and in the northwest area of the property. SIGNATURES • Karen ReevesUnited States • Kenneth SurbaughUnited States • Kimberly SurbaughUnited States • Ken walzUnited States • Kay SchroederUnited States • Christine GuentherUnited States • David HansonUnited States • Garrett HartyUnited States • Jeff SUnited States • Kurt AndersonBahamas • Kris andersonBahamas • barbara prindleUnited States • Esther VilleneuveUnited States • Midge Putzke DockenUnited States • Emily Tinawi-HarkinsUnited States • Christy EversonUnited States • Sarah SchulteUnited States • Melissa CaulfieldUnited States • Anne MelendezUnited States • Marcia AndersonUnited States • Hannah ThackerUnited States • Kait ThackerUnited States • Hiebert CateUnited States • Laura MonsonUnited States • Joel SatherUnited States • Barrie leeUnited States • Todd GaglioneUnited States • Aaron KorusUnited States • MikeCanada • Robin ScholerUnited States • Andrea KarlenUnited States • Jeanne WoolcottUnited States • Corby HartyUnited States • Harmony BennettUnited States • Margaret BeegleUnited States • Heidi McCallisterUnited States • Marcie WeslockUnited States • Robert PlantenbergUnited States • Heather SelsethUnited States • Rod VirnigUnited States • Tara BannowUnited States • MALCOLM FORWARDUnited States • James FournierUnited States • Ben HarkinsUnited States • Blythe StillwellUnited States • Chuck GoxUnited States • Stephen TatzmannUnited States • Debbie EricksonUnited States • Stuart LeeUnited States • Josh ScheffUnited States • Jessica ScheffUnited States • Suzanne ForwardUnited States   1      Date:  December 13, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  Site Plan Review – TSG Apartments – 1111 Douglas Drive  The Simmons Group, Developer      Introduction  The Simmons Group is leading the development team for a two‐building multifamily proposal at  1111 Douglas Drive (a new address for the property of 1113 Douglas Drive will be assigned once the  existing building is demolished). As required by City Code, they are seeking Site Plan approval from  the Planning Commission in order to redevelop the property.    Background  1111 Douglas Drive currently contains a vacant office building used by the Tennant Company as its  headquarters for many years before a recent relocation to new facilities in Eden Prairie. The  Simmons Group has the property under contract and has developed a proposal to demolish the  existing office building and construct two multifamily buildings in its place. The 2040 Comprehensive  Plan guided this location for Neighborhood Mixed Use and the property was rezoned to that  designation in 2020.    There is an existing PUD in place (PUD 22) which would be rescinded to correspond with the  demolition of the building.    The property is 6.88 acres is size and sits in the southwest quadrant of Douglas Drive and Golden  Valley Road. There is a heavily wooded area roughly 130 feet wide along the west property line; a  large portion of this would be retained as the rest of the site is redeveloped.    Current site access consists of a mid‐block driveway onto Douglas Drive, which would remain, and a  mid‐block driveway onto Golden Valley Road, which would shift to the west but would continue to  provide access.    2    The existing office building is surrounded by surface parking on all four sides. The new proposed  buildings would be shifted closer to the east property line (along Douglas Drive) and would screen  the majority of the surface parking which would be located centrally on the lot. Mixed Use zoning  allows more than one building to be constructed on one parcel. The two buildings would be  addressed as 1101 Douglas Drive (south building) and 1123 Douglas Drive (north building).      Existing and proposed site conditions    City Code Requirement  City Code Section 113‐32 requires the Planning Commission to review site plans for proposed  construction within a Mixed Use Zoning District. Site plans are reviewed with reference to (a)  conformance to the applicable standards of the City Code and other City requirements and (b)  where applicable, consistency with the development standards and objectives established for the  Mixed Use Zoning District. The regulations recognize the unique character of land and development  throughout the City and the need for flexibility in site plan review, allowing the Planning  Commission some discretion in reviewing proposals.    3    In this case, the Planning Commission will be asked to review site plans in light of the recently  adopted Mixed Use requirements as well as the Architectural and Material Standards developed for  properties zoned Mixed Use.    Staff Analysis  The full text of the Mixed Use Zoning District and the Architectural and Material Standards are  attached; staff has prepared highlights of each section of code below along with staff comments on  each of the requirements in red.    For areas where the proposal deviates from the Mixed Use requirements (noted as highlights), the  development team has provided additional information in attached text and images.    Mixed Use Zoning District Standards:  Dimensional Standards  (1) Front Yards.  Building façades must be located within the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks.  Due to the presence of utility easements along Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road, the  proposed building front yard setbacks are greater than the maximum allowed. See additional  staff comments in the section on Subdistrict Standards below.    (2) Building Height.  Building height is limited and the minimum/maximum height of the ground floor and all upper  floors are regulated.  Building height as proposed is consistent with the Mixed Use requirements (four stories); a  stepback of the upper story is not required. Height of the ground story as well as the upper  stories is compliant.    (3) Façades.  Building entries must be provided along street frontages and the primary building entrance  must be located along a street frontage. One entry must be provided for every 80 feet of  building façade. Where a building fronts onto two or more streets, the façade of a secondary  front yard under 50 feet in length is exempt from the entry requirement.  The primary building entrances are proposed to be located off of the internal parking area away  from the street frontages of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road. This is meant to provide  convenience for residents, guests, and deliveries as there is no street parking allowed along  either road. Three secondary key‐controlled entrances/exits are located along the street  frontages to allow residents direct access to sidewalks and bike paths. The spacing of these  entrances is more than code prescribes – a ratio of roughly one per every 250 feet of building  façade.    The development team has further documented the reasons why they believe locating the  primary entrances internally and limiting the number of secondary entrances is reasonable (see  page 2 of the attached Response Memo). Staff is supportive of this design.    4      Subdistrict Standards  (1) Neighborhood Mixed Use (MU‐N) Subdistrict  (a) Principle Structure Setbacks.  The maximum primary front yard setback is 12 feet; the maximum secondary front yard  setback is 15 feet. Side yard setbacks are 10 feet and the rear yard setback is 15 feet.  As noted above, utility easements on the site prevent the buildings from being placed as  close to the street as the zoning standards require. A 20 foot wide private gas facilities  easement along Douglas Drive means the distance to the closest foundation (south  building) is 10.5 feet from the edge of the easement but 30.5 feet from the front property  line. Similarly, an approximately 15.7 foot wide sanitary sewer easement along Golden  Valley Road means the distance to the closest foundation is 4.7 feet from the edge of the  easement but 20.3 feet from the front property line.    The buildings have been placed as close as possible to the front property lines given the  width of the existing easements and the additional distances from the utilities required to  dig and pour the foundations. Both buildings are significantly closer to the front property  lines than the existing building, enhancing the streetscape. Staff believes the intent of this  requirement has been met.    (b) Parking and Storage Setbacks.  Parking must be set back at least 30 feet from the primary front yard property line and at  least 15 feet from the secondary front yard property line. Parking setbacks from a side or  rear yard are six feet.  All parking setbacks as proposed are consistent with the Mixed Use requirements.    (c) Height.  Height is limited to four stories or 62 feet, whichever is less. Within 75 feet for R‐1 or R‐2  zoned properties, height is limited to two stories or 34 feet.  The proposed building height is four stories or roughly 50 feet. The proposed site is greater  than 75 feet from R‐1 or R‐2 zoned properties, so additional height restrictions are not  applicable.    (d) Stepbacks.  A 15 foot minimum stepback is required above three stories for frontages on rights‐of‐way  less than 70 feet in width.  Rights‐of‐way on Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road are greater than 70 feet, so the  stepback provision is not required.    (e) Lot Coverage.  The maximum impervious surface amount allowed is 85%. The maximum non‐structure  coverage area allowed is 15%. The minimum amount of useable outdoor space is 10%.  The proposal is well under the maximum impervious surface amount allowed (roughly 50%  proposed vs. 85% allowed) and the active and passive open space located along the  5    western edge of the site is well over the 10% of useable outdoor space required. A high  water table restricts underground parking to only one level. Moving parking into the ground  levels of the buildings would displace units and remove “active” uses that would otherwise  line the buildings’ façades. Therefore, in order to achieve the required minimum number of  parking spaces, the only options remaining are to utilize additional surface parking or to  construct a ramp. The development team has chosen to utilize surface parking (though  holding off on paving some through a standard “proof of parking” option) over constructing  a ramp to the rear of the buildings which would block views of the open space from units on  that side of the buildings. Staff believes this is a reasonable approach.    (f) Uses.  Multifamily dwellings (three or more units) are a permitted use in the Neighborhood  subdistrict.    Development Standards  (1) Parking.  (a) Required parking.  Minimum required parking must bet located to the side or rear of buildings.   Proposed surface parking is located behind the buildings.    (b) Access.  Driveways are limited to 20 feet in width. Pedestrian access to off‐street parking must be  provided from front yards.  The driveway through the site is proposed to be 24 feet wide. Engineering staff prefer this  width as is allows for standard two‐way traffic (utilizing 12 foot drive lanes). The 20 foot  width noted in the zoning code is best suited for a smaller urban lot, with limited traffic and  greater pedestrian activity. Staff supports the wider driveway as proposed. Sidewalks are  planned to connect off‐street parking with the public realm (front yards).    (c) Screening.  Parking areas must be screened from view from public streets, sidewalks, and paths.  The layout of the two buildings with surface parking behind them provides a significant  amount of screening of the parking areas. Existing trees along Golden Valley Road would  provide additional screening to the west.    (d) Structured parking.  No structured parking proposed (one level of underground parking utilized).    (2) Pedestrian Circulation.  (a) Sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, walkways are required along all  building facades that abut parking areas, and pedestrian paths must be provided from the  sidewalk to each primary entrance of a building.  6    The proposal includes a complete network of sidewalks and trails – some connecting to the  public system but others providing access to the primary entrances as well as through a  landscaped recreational open space.    Architectural and Material Standards:  Mixed Use Zoning District  (1) Architectural.  (a) Façades greater than 40 feet in length must be visually articulated into smaller intervals  through the use of steps in the façade; variation in materials, texture or color; or placement  of windows and doors.  Staff believes this requirement has been met.    (b) Views into and out of the building should enliven the streetscape and enhance security.  The proposal meets the requirements of 20% of the ground floor façade facing the street  containing window and door openings and 15% of the ground floor of the side and rear  façades. Upper floors meet the requirement of at least 15% of the façade containing  window and door openings.    (c) Building entrances must be provided on the primary street and all entrances must be  lighted and defined architecturally.  This standard has been met (entrances are provided on the primary and secondary streets  as well internal to the site).    (d) Utilities, refuse and recycling containers, loading docks, etc., must be placed inside the  building or screened from off‐site views.  These uses have been sufficiently screened (located in underground parking areas).    (2) Materials.  (a) Front façades must be composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10%  Class III materials.  This standard has been met for all front façades.    (b) Side and rear façades must be composed of at least 40% Class I materials and no more than  10% Class III materials.  This standard has been met for all side and rear façades.    (c) Each façade must use at least two types of Class I materials.  This standard has been met.    Requested Flexibility  In summary, the development team is requesting flexibility in site design for four requirements:   Maximum front yard setbacks   Primary entrance location   Maximum non‐structure lot coverage  7     Driveway width    Staff is supportive of all four of these requests. The developer has worked to limit the front yard  setbacks as much as possible given the location of utility easements on the property. Staff believes  the intended spirit of providing a strong street presence has been met to the best of the developer’s  ability.    The remaining three requests all stem from the size and location of the property being redeveloped.  Staff reviewed the minutes of the meetings during which the Mixed Use requirements were being  discussed, and it is clear that the types of sites being contemplated were smaller lots in a more  urban location such as a downtown commercial area. In that setting, providing a primary entrance  directly onto the sidewalk was an obvious choice, as was limiting the width of any driveway that  would allow vehicles access to parking behind the building. Further, for a smaller site a priority was  placed on limiting surface parking in order to push vehicles underground or into a structure and  preserve natural or usable open space.    The site under review, at almost 7 acres, is much larger than was contemplated when the  requirements were drafted and is subject to other existing conditions, such as a prohibition of on‐ street parking, that make compliance with the standards as adopted counter‐intuitive.    For many of the reasons outlined above, staff supports locating the primary building entrances off of  the interior courtyards. The presence of dozens of balconies and patios along the street‐facing  façades – as well as significant areas on the ground floors of the buildings on either side of the main  entrance off Douglas Drive being dedicated to common uses such as fitness studios, business  centers, game rooms, and lounges – help serve to activate the street and enhance the  pedestrian/bicycle experience. Secondary entrances aide in this activation.    Similarly, site conditions make restricting non‐structure lot coverage to 15% of the lot area  challenging and even counter‐productive. When the Planning Commission drafted the Mixed Use  regulations, there was a conscious effort to limit non‐structure coverage as a way to reduce surface  parking in favor of structured or underground parking. This is much easier to achieve on a small lot  where the square footage of the use means relatively few parking spaces are needed. At the scale of  development that is being proposed here, and for the use being proposed, a great many parking  spaces (311) are required. With building height capped at four stories and a high water table limited  underground parking, staff supports a well‐planned surface parking design over the construction of  a third structure solely for parking which would detract from the active and passive open spaces  that are proposed. The development team has envisioned the central driveway and the associated  parking as a living street that is pedestrian friendly – “we planned for food trucks, dog walking,  strollers, picnicking in the park, and movie nights as well.” These same efforts would not be possible  within structured parking.    Finally, as described earlier in this memo, for a development of this size with only two access points,  a 24 foot wide driveway that accommodates two 12 foot drive lanes is preferred by staff in  Engineering and Fire.  8      Recommendation  Staff is seeking Planning Commission approval for the proposed site plan for redevelopment of 1111  Douglas Drive for two multifamily buildings.    Attachments  Applicant Response Memo and Exhibits (17 pages)  Section 113‐97 – Mixed Use Zoning District (9 pages)  Section 113‐157 – Architectural and Material Standards (6 pages)  Memorandum Project Name: TSG – Golden Valley Apartments Project Number: 2021-1017.01 To: Jason Zimmerman, City of Golden Valley Planning Manager From: Brian Tempas, AIA Date: December 03, 2021 Subject: Zoning Ordinance Comments (dated Nov. 19th) – Team Response Copy To: Tony Simmons and Eric Kaphingst (TSG) Matt Pavek, Dave Knaeble (CSG) Loni Strassman, AIA, Mohammed Lawal, FAIA (LSE) 11.19.2021 - Email from Jason Zimmerman (Planning Manager – City of Golden Valley) Brian, I was recently granted access to review the plans for 1101 Douglas Drive and I am concerned that a number of requirements and design standards for our Mixed-Use Zoning District, as well as some of our Architectural and Material Standards, were overlooked. Here is a quick summary of the code sections that I believe need to be addressed: Sec. 113-97. Mixed Use Zoning District (d)(1)(a) Front Yards. Building facades must be located within the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks. 1. Douglas Drive (primary front yard) – 3 feet minimum to 12 feet maximum [does not appear to be met] Design Team response:  A 20’-6” gas facilities easement exists along the entire property line fronting Douglas Drive – see Exhibit C. No permanent building structures are allowed in this easement. The minimum effective building setback face from the eastern property line is effectively 23’-6” feet. The two apartment buildings are designed with much façade articulation.  The east primary building façade(s) are set in close proximity to the western edge of the gas facilities easement as constructability and buildability will allow and accommodate accessible access walks, entrance/ exits, stairs, landscaping and building façade variations to enhance the Douglas Drive frontage. The building façade setbacks from the gas facilities easement western edge vary in dimension from 8’-9” (at bay) to 24’-3” (at building step). 14’-0” of earth must be removed (out from the face of the building) to install the foundations and footings, and the average dimension (from the bump outs) to the easement is 11’-5”.  The primary building façade design along Douglas Drive creates a very strong “urban street frontage” that closely parallels Douglas Drive. The two building facades combine for a total building front of 518’-0”, with 219’-8” on Building B (South) and 298’-4” on Building A (North). The primary buildings are separated by 119’-9” with a central access vehicular drive from Douglas Drive (which exists) creating a single car crossing on the Douglas Drive pedestrian sidewalk.  Significant building amenities are positioned on the street and first level facing Douglas Drive. The team strongly believes that the design and intent meet the City of Golden Valley for the building primary front yard and desired setbacks from the property line.  Please reference Exhibit C and G indicating easement and building façade locations. Page 2 2. Golden Valley Road (secondary front yard across a public right-of-way from R-1 zoned properties) – 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum [does not appear to be met] Design Team Response:  A 15’-6” Storm Water easement exists along the property line fronting Golden Valley Road– see Exhibit D. No permanent building structures are allowed in this easement. The minimum effective building setback face from the northern property line is effectively 18’-6” feet. The building is designed with much façade articulation.  The north primary building façade is set in close proximity to the southern edge of the storm water easement as constructability and buildability will allow and accommodate accessible access walks, entrance/ exits, stairs, landscaping and building façade variations to enhance the Golden Valley Road frontage. The building façade setbacks from the storm water easement southern edge vary in dimension from 4’-8” to 20’-6” along the Golden Valley Road frontage. 14’-0” of earth must be removed (out from the face of the building) to install the foundations and footings, and the average dimension from the building corners to the easement is 12’-8”.  The site has an acute corner geometry at Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road. This corner has been left open for added landscaping to enhance pedestrian and vehicular sightlines from the roundabout. This acute corner is inefficient building space and thus has been left open as a significant green space setting for public view and use.  The team strongly believes the design and intent meet the City of Golden Valley desires for the building secondary front yard and desired setbacks from the property line.  Please reference Exhibit D indicating easement and building location. 3. (d)(3) Façades. The primary building entrance must be located along a street frontage. One entry must be provided for every 80 feet for building façade. [does not appear to be met] Design Team response:  Residential communities prioritize building security, responsible circulation, and ADA access at primary entries.  The primary building entrance(s) for the north and south buildings occur through the interior garden parking. The preference is to have a single main and secure primary entrance for each residential building. This single entrance is to be used by visitors, residents, and deliveries. We believe that the most desirable location for the primary entrance is on the site interior adjacent the accessible drive, parking, and drop-off area.  The absence of street parking and loading zones on Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road near the property make it difficult, hazardous, and inaccessible to direct visitors, residents, and deliveries to a primary entrance along street frontage.  The primary interior building entrance is equitable and accessible to all visitors, residents, and deliveries.  Secondary resident building entrances exist at the stairs, and these are designed with exterior canopies, lighting, and stairs to enhance their appeal to pedestrians and the street frontage. These entries allow direct access to the neighborhood trail system and provide opportunities for an active zone (pedestrians, bicycles, etc). The 53 balconies and patios (10 of which are on the first level) also activate Douglas Drive.  For safety and security reasons, the team believe that a single main primary entrance is appropriate for a building of this size. A single entrance also fosters ‘familiarity’ of residents further enhancing safety and security.  Please reference Exhibit A, J, and H for exterior information on entries. 4. (f)(1)(e)(ii) Neighborhood Mixed Use Subdistrict Standards – Lot Coverage. Non-structure coverage maximum – 15% of lot area [please check and verify] Design Team response:  The non-structure coverage criteria has very little detail in the City code. As communicated to the project team by the City, the intent of this non-structure coverage maximum is to promote walkability and prevent a ‘sea of parking’ that is visible from the road. We believe we balanced City codes for this site and designed a very walkable and esthetically pleasing project for the community, albeit beyond a 15% non-structure coverage maximum. Page 3  We created a park with walking trails as a community amenity to promote pedestrian interaction. The trails and sidewalks circulate within the property and connect to the neighborhood trail system along Douglas Drive.  The development, with proof of parking, meets parking requirements (311 vehicles) - 160 vehicles in garage and 141 surface. Ten (10) vehicles in the proof of parking.  The surface parking needed is eloquently masked from street view. The intent is to beautify street views by reducing visible parking, the current plan separates the cars in the garden park with open pathways and views to the green spaces which increases walkability and community interaction.  Area required for surface vehicles + drive aisles + sidewalks/trails = 91, 275 sf (30.1%), exceeds allowable (15%).  The 6.96-acre site has ground water issues, only a single level of below grade garage parking is possible.  A parking ramp achieves less non-structured coverage; but is out of alignment with Golden Valley aesthetics. It would also inhibit the view corridors of many residents with apartments facing the interior of the site. Views of a park are preferred to views of a parking structure.  The team believes the site coverage parameters severely limit the site potential and are not possible to achieve.  Multifamily is the highest and best use for this site and the use does not allow for 15% non-structure coverage and to be esthetically pleasing.  The design is well under the impervious surface maximum, has similar coverage to existing use and eliminates the existing unsightly surface parking. o Existing building + pavement coverage is 47.1%, non-pavement is 52.9%. o Proposed building + pavement coverage is 50.2%, non-pavement is 49.8%.  The team asks that the city allow the coverage shown in this development in lieu of moving to a structured ramp.  Please reference Exhibit C, D, and K for information. Sec. 113-157. Architectural and Material Standards (g)(1) Mixed Use Architectural Standards (a) Facades. 5. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by: a. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade; b. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color; c. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies; Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and canopies. [appears to be partially met] Design Team response:  The zoning variations are both horizontal and vertical in nature, and the team incorporated various levels of brick, strategically placed siding, generous expanses of glass and an integrated panelized system to generate diversity in scale, material, texture, color and rhythm.  A bold banding is displayed, providing depth of detail while stepping in and out. Stacked balconies also create texture that steps out from the vertical plane.  The building steps back at the corners while the short wing steps significantly (17 feet) to express an organic movement in the façade.  The team strongly believes the range of elements provide an artistically pleasant solution with a mixture of elements meeting the objectives of this building standard.  Please reference Exhibit A, E (existing), F (proposed), H, and J for exterior expression. 6. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the Page 4 area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 15 percent of the façade area for residential uses. [please check and verify] Design Team response:  The ground floor street side incorporates balconies to enliven the streetscape and these balconies are situated just off the ground to enhance security.  The ground floor façade facing the street exceeds 20% glass. The ground floor side and rear facades exceed 15% glass.  Upper stories exceed 15% glass for the façade.  Refer to Exhibit B, H, and J to see calculations and proposed appearance. 7. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. [does not appear to be met] Design Team response:  The building entrances along Golden Valley Road and the building entrances along Douglas Drive are all defined by canopy, lighting, and architectural details.  Please reference Exhibit A for entry information. 8. (g)(2) Mixed Use Material Standards (a) Front façades, and side and rear façades visible form the public right-of-way, shall be composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. [does not appear to be met] Design Team response:  The team reviewed and revised the exterior materials and their composition. More brick was added to achieve the appropriate ratios.  Please reference Exhibit A, H, and J elevations that indicate the methodology for calculation and appearance. Signage Permits for individual building signage must be applied for and will be reviewed separately.  To be reviewed in a separate submittal. MATERIALS LEGEND MATERIALS LEGEND A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 10:46:18 AM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING A TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING A A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION- BUILDING A A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH INNER CORNER ELEVATION BUILDING A LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8'): GLASS: BRICK 1 10.22.21 Addendum 1 LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8') GLASS BRICK MATERIALS LEGEND MATERIALS LEGEND A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 10:46:33 AM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING A TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A402 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION- BUILDING A A402 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION- BUILDING A LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8') GLASS BRICK LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8') GLASS BRICK MATERIALS LEGEND MATERIALS LEGEND A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 10:46:44 AM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A403 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING B TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A403 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING B A403 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION- BUILDING B 1 10.22.21 Addendum 1 LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8') GLASS BRICK LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8') GLASS BRICK MATERIALS LEGEND MATERIALS LEGEND A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 10:46:56 AM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A404 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING B TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A404 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION- BUILDING B A404 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION- BUILDING B SIMILAR TO 2/A401 SIMILAR TO 1/A401 LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8') GLASS BRICK LAP SIDING A (7" EXPOSURE) HARDIE PANEL (4'X8') GLASS BRICK GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 3:03:05 PM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING A TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING A A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION- BUILDING A A401 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH INNER CORNER ELEVATION BUILDING A 1 10.22.21 Addendum 1 GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 3:03:22 PM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING A TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A402 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION- BUILDING A A402 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION- BUILDING A GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 3:03:32 PM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A403 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING B TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A403 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING B A403 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION- BUILDING B 1 10.22.21 Addendum 1 GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; GLASS AREA PERCENTAGES FIRST FLOOR SURFACE AREA: FIRST FLOOR GLASS AREA: UPPER LEVELS SURFACE AREA: UPPER AREA GLASS AREA; A R C H I T E C T S Copyright © LSE Architects, Inc. Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: 12/2/2021 3:03:43 PM BIM 360://21.1017.01 TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts/21.1017.01_TSG Golden Valley Market Rt Apts.rvt21.1017.01 2021.10.04 Author BT A404 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING B TSG Golden Valley Apartments PERMITTING PACKAGE PERMITTING PACKAGE Mohammed Lawal FAIA 11/10/21 24228 A404 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION- BUILDING B A404 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION- BUILDING B SIMILAR TO 2/A401 SIMILAR TO 1/A401 10" Clay Pipe10" Clay Pipe12"RCP18"RCP18"RCP18"RCP24" RCPP.I.D. 32-118-21-11-0002Address: 6533 Golden Valley RdOwner: Sterling Properties, LLLP24" RCP24" RCP18" RCP18" RCPRCP15"24" RCPRCP15"RCP15"24" RCP18" RCP36" RCP36" RCP36" RCP36" RCPRCP15"N00°24'11"E 539.82 N51°40'34"E39.74C=186.96CB=N62°12'54"ER=5744.13Δ=1°51'54"186.97N61°17'14"E 290 .99 S00°24'11"W 802.96N88°31'49"W 450.09665.83 221.30C=47.96CB=N57°07'27"WR=39.00Δ=75°52'50"51.65C=80.12CB=N14°21'59"WR=477.00Δ=9°38'06"80.21[7]Highway Easementper Doc. No. 4939368[8]Roadway Easementper Doc. No. 10185586[5] Storm Sewer Easementper Doc. No. 3832032[6] Gas Facilities Easementper Doc. No. 4428480RCP15"RCP12"15" RCPWest Line of the East 500 feetof the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 ofSec. 32, Twp. 118, Rng. 21GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD(A Public R/W)(Width Varies)DOUGLAS DRIVE N(A Public R/W)(Width Varies)Southerly Right of Wayline of Golden ValleyRoadEast Line of the NE 1/4 ofthe NE 1/4 of Sec. 32,Twp. 118, Rng. 21 WRailroad TracksEast Line of the West450 feet of the East 500feet of the NE 1/4 ofthe NE 1/4 of Sec. 32,Twp. 118, Rng. 2136" RCP27" RCP36" RCP (Per Rec Loc. per GIScould not findART SCULPTURE, TYP.A4031129-B1-BEDROOM126-B2-BEDROOM124-B2-BEDROOM127-B1-BEDROOM125-B2-BEDROOM122-B1-BEDROOM123-B2-BEDROOM120-BSTUDIO118-BSTUDIO116-BSTUDIO121-B2-BEDROOM114-B1-BEDROOM112-B1-BEDROOM119-B1-BEDROOM117-B1-BEDROOM115-B1-BEDROOM113-B2-BEDROOM111-B1-BEDROOM110-B1-BEDROOM109-B1-BEDROOM108-B2-BEDROOM107-B1-BEDROOM150-BSTAIR A131-BCORRIDOR140-BELEVATORLOBBY142-BELEC.141-BJANITOR141A-BTRASH132-BCORRIDOR15A-BSTAIR BDNDNREF.1012-BEDROOM1022-BEDROOM1031-BEDROOM1042-BEDROOM1051-BEDROOM1061-BEDROOM1071-BEDROOM1082-BEDROOM1091-BEDROOM1101-BEDROOM1111-BEDROOM1121-BEDROOM1132-BEDROOM1141-BEDROOM1151-BEDROOM116STUDIO1171-BEDROOM1191-BEDROOM1212-BEDROOM1232-BEDROOM1252-BEDROOM150STAIR A140ELEVATORLOBBY151STAIR B142ELEC142AJAN.141TRASH130CORRIDOR131CORRIDOR132CORRIDOR133AVESTIBULE133LOBBY134CORRIDOR160MAIL161PACKAGES162VENDING163BUSINESSCENTER164CONFERENCE143MENS144SHOWER145WOMENS146SHOWER147POOLSTORAGE167LOUNGE165KITCHEN /DINING166FIREPLACELOUNGE168MEETING ROOM170GAMES169GOLFSIMULATOR145W8W8W7AW8175' REAR PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING R-3 RESIDENTIAL 10' MIN. - 15' MAX . SECONDARY FRONT YARD BU ILD ING SETBACK (ADJ . TO R -1 ) 3' MIN. - 12' MAX. PRIMARY FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK10' SIDE PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SETBACK6' REAR YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK 15' SECONDARY FRONT YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK6' SIDE YARD PARKING SETBACKCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGR3 . 0 'R3.0'R45.0'R10.0'R3.0'R10.0'R3.0'R15.0'R15.0'R20.0'R20.0'R62.0'R32.3'R3.0'R45.0'R104.0'R268.0'R15.0'R100.0' R 1 5 . 0 'R10.0'R 3 . 0 'R10.0'R3.0'R3.0'R42.0'R10.0'R3.0'R3.0'R21.0'R3.0'R79.0'R3.0'R3.0'R100.0'R200.0'24.0'24.0'18.5'24.0'18.5'9.0'9.0'5.0'18.5'18.5'24.0'5.7'24.0'5.7'24.0'5.7'10.1'18.5'5.0'18.5'8.0'24.2'125.2'124.8'31.7'34.3'48.7'44.6'24.0'24.6'5.7'36.5'6.0'38.5'35.3'20.0'24.0'24.0'5.7'16.0'6.0'5.7'27.0'5.7'REMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING PAVEMENT ANDBASE MATERIAL TO MATCHEXISTING PAVEMENT SECTIONFOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTIONREMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING PAVEMENT ANDBASE MATERIAL TO MATCHEXISTING PAVEMENT SECTIONFOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTIONCONCRETE DRIVEWAYAPRON PER CITYDETAIL GV-STRT-050CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.OPEN LAWN /NATIVE/POLLINATORPLANTING BED, TYP.BITUMINOUSWALKING PATH, TYP.BITUMINOUSWALKING PATH, TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.20'X36' UNDERGROUNDPOOL, TYP. SEE ARCH.PLANS FOR DETAILS6' HT. DECORATIVEMETAL FENCING, TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.MOD. BLOCK RETAININGWALL, WITH RAILING. COORD.W/OWNER, TYP.SEE GRADINGPLAN FOR HEIGHT, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.STORMWATER BASINCONCRETEPATIO, TYP.6.0'16.0'5.7'6' HT.DECORATIVEDOG RUN FENCE& GATES, TYP.DOG RUN, TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.10' CURBTAPERPEDESTRIAN RAMP PERADA STANDARDS, TYP.PEDESTRIAN RAMPPER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.7' CURB TAPER, TYP.PEDESTRIAN RAMP PERADA STANDARDS, TYP.5' CURBTAPERRIBBON CURB,TYP.REINFORCEDCONCRETEPAVEMENT, TYP.PEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.7' CURBTAPER7' CURBTAPERPEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.PEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.7' CURBTAPER7' CURBTAPERPEDESTRIAN RAMP PERADA STANDARDS, TYP.REINFORCEDCONCRETEPAVEMENT, TYP.5' CURB TAPER12' CURB TAPER12' CURB TAPER5' CURB TAPERPEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.PEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.RIBBON CURB, TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.12' CURBTAPER13' CURBTAPER15' CURBTAPER12' CURBTAPER15' CURBTAPER15' CURBTAPER12' CURB TAPER12' CURB TAPERMOD. BLOCK RETAININGWALL, WITH RAILING.COORD. W/OWNER, TYP.SEE GRADING PLANFOR HEIGHT, TYP.5' CURBTAPER5' CURBTAPERRIBBON CURB, TYP.TOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTO10.0'10.0'5.7 '24.0 '5.7'11.6'9.0'9.0'5.7'24.0'20.0'4.2'2.7'R66.4'R 6 9 . 2 'R50.7'R21.0'R3.0'R25 4 . 3 'R100.0'R10.9'R 1 0 . 9 'R18.0'R18.0'R292.0'R3.0'R66.7'R50.7'R96.0'R16.0'9.0'9.0' 9.0'9.0' 9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'14.1'3.4'R5.0'R5.0'R5.0'R262.3' R262.3'14.0'5.6'5.7'47.7'7.7'21.1'10.0'55.6'4.0'16.7'20.0' 16.0'14.0'5.0'8.0'8.0'8.0'7.9'18.5'24.0'42.0'24.0'18.5'5.7'14.0'20.5'42.0'4' HT. DECORATIVEMETAL FENCING, TYP.COORD. W/ ARCH'L ONBALCONYS ANDPATIOS, TYP.ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACE, INCL. SIGNAGE,STRIPING AND RAMPSACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACE, INCL. SIGNAGE,STRIPING AND RAMPSCONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.7.0'5.0'16.6'3.4'12.0'14.0'9.4'4.5'5.0'20.0'5.0'23.0'36.0' 5.0' 5.0' 10.6'DARK STAINEDCONCRETE, TYP.DARK STAINEDCONCRETE, TYP.POOL STORAGE SHED,TYP. SEE ARCH.PLANS FOR DETAILSCONCRETEPATIO, TYP.COORD. W/ ARCH'L ONBALCONYS ANDPATIOS, TYP.REPLACE BIT. TRAILFOR UTILITYCONSTRUCTION.MATCH EXISTINGSECTION16.5'12.6'13.0'13.9'12.8'18.3'13.2'28.7'24.3'11.1'8.8'10.5'14.3'181612972422911131624.0'PROOF OF PARKING AREAAT TIME OF ADDITIONAL PARKINGDEVELOPMENT, PARK PATIO WILL BEREMOVED & RECONFIGURED TO ALLBOTH PATIO SPACE AND NEWPARKINGAT TIME OF ADDITIONAL PARKINGDEVELOPMENT, 6 PARKING SPACESARE TO BE REMOVED ANDRECONFIGURED TO ALLOW NEWPARKINGR10.0'R46.0'R24.0'R20.0'R14.0'R30.0'R100.0'R50.0'R15.0'8.0'8.0'8.0'Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cTSG - GOLDEN VALLEY APARTMENTS 1113 & 1123 DOUGLAS DRIVE N; GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 5005 COLUMBUS AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 THE SIMMONS GROUP PROJECT ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION............PROJECT NUMBER:2116709/27/21PRICING PACKAGE10/11/21PERMIT SET11/1/21ADDENDUM #2 - CITY RESUBMITTAL......09/08/21CITY STORMWATER SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:KB, BJDK..............202148776David J. KnaebleLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.12/01/21REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN - OVERALL11/29/21ADDENDUM #4..........SITE AREA TABLE:1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING ANDPROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANYREVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THELAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.6.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FORREVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.7.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE ASSHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALLPREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FORCURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.9.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.10.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHERPAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.11.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.12.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.14.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.15.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.16.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.17.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.18.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.19.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND (SHEETS C2.0-C2.2):TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGSSIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRCONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) AS SPECIFIED(PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FORAGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, SEE DETAIL.PROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE& WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES.ACCESSIBILITY ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOTPAINT.11222PARKING CALCULATIONS & SUMMARY: 10" Clay Pipe10" Clay Pipe12"RCP18"RCP18"RCP18"RCP24" RCPP.I.D. 32-118-21-11-0002Address: 6533 Golden Valley RdOwner: Sterling Properties, LLLP24" RCP24" RCP18" RCP18" RCPRCP15"24" RCPRCP15"RCP15"24" RCP18" RCP36" RCP36" RCP36" RCP36" RCPRCP15"N00°24'11"E 539.82 N51°40'34"E39.74C=186.96CB=N62°12'54"ER=5744.13Δ=1°51'54"186.97N61°17'14"E 290 .99 S00°24'11"W 802.96N88°31'49"W 450.09665.83 221.30C=47.96CB=N57°07'27"WR=39.00Δ=75°52'50"51.65C=80.12CB=N14°21'59"WR=477.00Δ=9°38'06"80.21[7]Highway Easementper Doc. No. 4939368[8]Roadway Easementper Doc. No. 10185586[5] Storm Sewer Easementper Doc. No. 3832032[6] Gas Facilities Easementper Doc. No. 4428480RCP15"RCP12"15" RCPWest Line of the East 500 feetof the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 ofSec. 32, Twp. 118, Rng. 21GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD(A Public R/W)(Width Varies)DOUGLAS DRIVE N(A Public R/W)(Width Varies)Southerly Right of Wayline of Golden ValleyRoadEast Line of the NE 1/4 ofthe NE 1/4 of Sec. 32,Twp. 118, Rng. 21 WRailroad TracksEast Line of the West450 feet of the East 500feet of the NE 1/4 ofthe NE 1/4 of Sec. 32,Twp. 118, Rng. 2136" RCP27" RCP36" RCP (Per Rec Loc. per GIScould not findART SCULPTURE, TYP.A4031129-B1-BEDROOM126-B2-BEDROOM124-B2-BEDROOM127-B1-BEDROOM125-B2-BEDROOM122-B1-BEDROOM123-B2-BEDROOM120-BSTUDIO118-BSTUDIO116-BSTUDIO121-B2-BEDROOM114-B1-BEDROOM112-B1-BEDROOM119-B1-BEDROOM117-B1-BEDROOM115-B1-BEDROOM113-B2-BEDROOM111-B1-BEDROOM110-B1-BEDROOM109-B1-BEDROOM108-B2-BEDROOM107-B1-BEDROOM150-BSTAIR A131-BCORRIDOR140-BELEVATORLOBBY142-BELEC.141-BJANITOR141A-BTRASH132-BCORRIDOR15A-BSTAIR BDNDNREF.1012-BEDROOM1022-BEDROOM1031-BEDROOM1042-BEDROOM1051-BEDROOM1061-BEDROOM1071-BEDROOM1082-BEDROOM1091-BEDROOM1101-BEDROOM1111-BEDROOM1121-BEDROOM1132-BEDROOM1141-BEDROOM1151-BEDROOM116STUDIO1171-BEDROOM1191-BEDROOM1212-BEDROOM1232-BEDROOM1252-BEDROOM150STAIR A140ELEVATORLOBBY151STAIR B142ELEC142AJAN.141TRASH130CORRIDOR131CORRIDOR132CORRIDOR133AVESTIBULE133LOBBY134CORRIDOR160MAIL161PACKAGES162VENDING163BUSINESSCENTER164CONFERENCE143MENS144SHOWER145WOMENS146SHOWER147POOLSTORAGE167LOUNGE165KITCHEN /DINING166FIREPLACELOUNGE168MEETING ROOM170GAMES169GOLFSIMULATOR145W8W8W7AW8175' REAR PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING R-3 RESIDENTIAL 10' MIN. - 15' MAX . SECONDARY FRONT YARD BU ILD ING SETBACK (ADJ . TO R -1 ) 3' MIN. - 12' MAX. PRIMARY FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK10' SIDE PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SETBACK6' REAR YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK 30' FRONT YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK 15' SECONDARY FRONT YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK6' SIDE YARD PARKING SETBACKCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGR3 . 0 'R3.0'R45.0'R10.0'R3.0'R10.0'R3.0'R15.0'R15.0'R20.0'R20.0'R62.0'R32.3'R3.0'R45.0'R104.0'R268.0'R15.0'R100.0' R 1 5 . 0 'R10.0'R 3 . 0 'R10.0'R3.0'R3.0'R42.0'R10.0'R3.0'R3.0'R21.0'R3.0'R79.0'R3.0'R3.0'R100.0'R200.0'24.0'24.0'18.5'24.0'18.5'9.0'9.0'5.0'18.5'18.5'24.0'5.7'24.0'5.7'24.0'5.7'10.1'18.5'5.0'18.5'8.0'24.2'125.2'124.8'31.7'34.3'48.7'44.6'24.0'24.6'5.7'36.5'6.0'38.5'35.3'20.0'24.0'24.0'5.7'16.0'6.0'5.7'27.0'5.7'REMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING PAVEMENT ANDBASE MATERIAL TO MATCHEXISTING PAVEMENT SECTIONFOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTIONREMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING PAVEMENT ANDBASE MATERIAL TO MATCHEXISTING PAVEMENT SECTIONFOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTIONCONCRETE DRIVEWAYAPRON PER CITYDETAIL GV-STRT-050CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.OPEN LAWN /NATIVE/POLLINATORPLANTING BED, TYP.BITUMINOUSWALKING PATH, TYP.BITUMINOUSWALKING PATH, TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.20'X36' UNDERGROUNDPOOL, TYP. SEE ARCH.PLANS FOR DETAILS6' HT. DECORATIVEMETAL FENCING, TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.CONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.MOD. BLOCK RETAININGWALL, WITH RAILING. COORD.W/OWNER, TYP.SEE GRADINGPLAN FOR HEIGHT, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.CROSSWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.STORMWATER BASINCONCRETEPATIO, TYP.6.0'16.0'5.7'6' HT.DECORATIVEDOG RUN FENCE& GATES, TYP.DOG RUN, TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.HEAVYDUTY BIT.PVMT., TYP.10' CURBTAPERPEDESTRIAN RAMP PERADA STANDARDS, TYP.PEDESTRIAN RAMPPER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.7' CURB TAPER, TYP.PEDESTRIAN RAMP PERADA STANDARDS, TYP.5' CURBTAPERRIBBON CURB,TYP.REINFORCEDCONCRETEPAVEMENT, TYP.PEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.7' CURBTAPER7' CURBTAPERPEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.PEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.7' CURBTAPER7' CURBTAPERPEDESTRIAN RAMP PERADA STANDARDS, TYP.REINFORCEDCONCRETEPAVEMENT, TYP.5' CURB TAPER12' CURB TAPER12' CURB TAPER5' CURB TAPERPEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.PEDESTRIANRAMP PER ADASTANDARDS, TYP.RIBBON CURB, TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.LIGHT DUTYPVMT., TYP.CONCRETESIDEWALK, TYP.12' CURBTAPER13' CURBTAPER15' CURBTAPER12' CURBTAPER15' CURBTAPER15' CURBTAPER12' CURB TAPER12' CURB TAPERMOD. BLOCK RETAININGWALL, WITH RAILING.COORD. W/OWNER, TYP.SEE GRADING PLANFOR HEIGHT, TYP.5' CURBTAPER5' CURBTAPERRIBBON CURB, TYP.TOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTO10.0'10.0'5.7 '24.0 '5.7'11.6'9.0'9.0'5.7'24.0'20.0'4.2'2.7'R66.4'R 6 9 . 2 'R50.7'R21.0'R3.0'R25 4 . 3 'R100.0'R10.9'R 1 0 . 9 'R18.0'R18.0'R292.0'R3.0'R66.7'R50.7'R96.0'R16.0'9.0'9.0' 9.0'9.0' 9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'14.1'3.4'R5.0'R5.0'R5.0'R262.3' R262.3'14.0'5.6'5.7'47.7'7.7'21.1'10.0'55.6'4.0'16.7'20.0' 16.0'14.0'5.0'8.0'8.0'8.0'7.9'18.5'24.0'42.0'24.0'18.5'5.7'14.0'20.5'42.0'4' HT. DECORATIVEMETAL FENCING, TYP.COORD. W/ ARCH'L ONBALCONYS ANDPATIOS, TYP.ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACE, INCL. SIGNAGE,STRIPING AND RAMPSACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACE, INCL. SIGNAGE,STRIPING AND RAMPSCONCRETE SIDEWALK, TYP.7.0'5.0'16.6'3.4'12.0'14.0'9.4'4.5'5.0'20.0'5.0'23.0'36.0' 5.0' 5.0' 10.6'DARK STAINEDCONCRETE, TYP.DARK STAINEDCONCRETE, TYP.POOL STORAGE SHED,TYP. SEE ARCH.PLANS FOR DETAILSCONCRETEPATIO, TYP.COORD. W/ ARCH'L ONBALCONYS ANDPATIOS, TYP.REPLACE BIT. TRAILFOR UTILITYCONSTRUCTION.MATCH EXISTINGSECTION16.5'12.6'13.0'13.9'12.8'18.3'13.2'28.7'24.3'11.1'8.8'10.5'14.3'181612972422911131624.0'PROOF OF PARKING AREAAT TIME OF ADDITIONAL PARKINGDEVELOPMENT, PARK PATIO WILL BEREMOVED & RECONFIGURED TO ALLBOTH PATIO SPACE AND NEWPARKINGAT TIME OF ADDITIONAL PARKINGDEVELOPMENT, 6 PARKING SPACESARE TO BE REMOVED ANDRECONFIGURED TO ALLOW NEWPARKINGR10.0'R46.0'R24.0'R20.0'R14.0'R30.0'R100.0'R50.0'R15.0'8.0'8.0'8.0'Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cTSG - GOLDEN VALLEY APARTMENTS 1113 & 1123 DOUGLAS DRIVE N; GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 5005 COLUMBUS AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 THE SIMMONS GROUP PROJECT ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION............PROJECT NUMBER:2116709/27/21PRICING PACKAGE10/11/21PERMIT SET11/1/21ADDENDUM #2 - CITY RESUBMITTAL......09/08/21CITY STORMWATER SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:KB, BJDK..............202148776David J. KnaebleLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.12/01/21REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN - OVERALL11/29/21ADDENDUM #4..........SITE AREA TABLE:1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING ANDPROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANYREVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THELAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.6.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FORREVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.7.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE ASSHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALLPREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FORCURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.9.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.10.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHERPAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.11.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.12.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.14.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.15.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.16.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.17.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.18.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.19.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND (SHEETS C2.0-C2.2):TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGSSIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRCONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) AS SPECIFIED(PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FORAGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, SEE DETAIL.PROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE& WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE).SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES.ACCESSIBILITY ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOTPAINT.11222PARKING CALCULATIONS & SUMMARY: 115.15.918.15.9117.0120.0250.0 120.1N00°24'11"E 539.82 N51°40'34"E39.74C=186.96CB=N62°12'54"ER=5744.13Δ=1°51'54"186.97N61°17'14"E 290.99 S00°24'11"W 802.96N88°31'49"W 450.09665.83 221.30C=47.96CB=N57°07'27"WR=39.00Δ=75°52'50"51.65C=80.12CB=N14°21'59"WR=477.00Δ=9°38'06"80.21N00°24'11"E 539.82 N51°40 '34 "E39.74C=186.96CB=N62°12'54"ER=5744.13Δ=1°51'54"186.97N61°17'14"E 290 .99 S00°24'11"W 802.96N88°31'49"W 450.09665.83 221.30C=47.96CB=N57°07'27"WR=39.00Δ=75°52'50"51.65C=80.12CB=N14°21'59"WR=477.00Δ=9°38'06"80.21A4031129-B1-BEDROOM126-B2-BEDROOM124-B2-BEDROOM127-B1-BEDROOM125-B2-BEDROOM122-B1-BEDROOM123-B2-BEDROOM120-BSTUDIO118-BSTUDIO116-BSTUDIO121-B2-BEDROOM114-B1-BEDROOM112-B1-BEDROOM119-B1-BEDROOM117-B1-BEDROOM115-B1-BEDROOM113-B2-BEDROOM111-B1-BEDROOM110-B1-BEDROOM109-B1-BEDROOM108-B2-BEDROOM107-B1-BEDROOM150-BSTAIR A131-BCORRIDOR140-BELEVATORLOBBY142-BELEC.141-BJANITOR141A-BTRASH132-BCORRIDOR15A-BSTAIR BDNDNREF.1012-BEDROOM1022-BEDROOM1031-BEDROOM1042-BEDROOM1051-BEDROOM1061-BEDROOM1071-BEDROOM1082-BEDROOM1091-BEDROOM1101-BEDROOM1111-BEDROOM1121-BEDROOM1132-BEDROOM1141-BEDROOM1151-BEDROOM116STUDIO1171-BEDROOM1191-BEDROOM1212-BEDROOM1232-BEDROOM1252-BEDROOM150STAIR A140ELEVATORLOBBY151STAIR B142ELEC142AJAN.141TRASH130CORRIDOR131CORRIDOR132CORRIDOR133AVESTIBULE133LOBBY134CORRIDOR160MAIL161PACKAGES162VENDING163BUSINESSCENTER164CONFERENCE143MENS144SHOWER145WOMENS146SHOWER147POOLSTORAGE167LOUNGE165KITCHEN /DINING166FIREPLACELOUNGE168MEETING ROOM170GAMES169GOLFSIMULATOR145W8W8W7AW81NOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1816129724229111316Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cTSG - GOLDEN VALLEY APARTMENTS 1113 & 1123 DOUGLAS DRIVE N; GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 5005 COLUMBUS AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 THE SIMMONS GROUP PROJECT ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION............PROJECT NUMBER:2116709/27/21PRICING PACKAGE10/11/21PERMIT SET11/1/21ADDENDUM #2 - CITY RESUBMITTAL12/3/21CITY RESUBMITTAL....09/08/21CITY STORMWATER SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:KB, BJDK..............2021REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONEX1.0SITE COVERAGEEXHIBIT11/29/21ADDENDUM #4..........Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR12301" = 5'-0"5'-0"2'-6"N1EXISTING SITE COVERAGE01" = 5'-0"5'-0"2'-6"N1EXISTING SITE COVERAGE           Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 1 of 9  Sec. 113‐97. Mixed Use Zoning District.  (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed Use Zoning District is to implement the following principles:   (1) Implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.   (2) Enable appropriate locations within the City to evolve towards a diverse mix of compatible uses.   (3) Maximize integration rather than separation of uses.   (4) Improve connectivity for all modes of transportation.   (5) Provide a context suitable for high‐frequency transit.   (6) Foster neighborhood‐serving retail and service uses.   The district includes specific standards for building form, height, bulk, and placement in order to  encourage development that enhances walkability, frames the public realm, and seamlessly transitions  to adjacent development.   (b) District Established. Properties must be developed in the manner provided for in Section 113‐29. The district  and/or any subsequent changes to it shall be reflected in the Official Zoning Map of the City as provided in  Section 113‐56.   (c) Subdistrict Descriptions. The subdistricts of the Mixed Use Zoning District reflect the character of the  surrounding areas and support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.   Neighborhood Subdistrict (MU‐N)—This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including medium‐density residential  and medium‐scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Neighborhood Mixed Use  typically sit adjacent to County Roads or other roads classified as arterials or collectors and are accessible via  a variety of transportation modes. The target market is the surrounding neighborhood. The built  environment could incorporate freestanding businesses, religious or civic institutions, and attached housing  options including small apartment buildings. These areas allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use  and do not require a mix of uses within every building.   Community Subdistrict (MU‐C)—This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including high‐density residential and  commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Community Mixed Use typically sit adjacent  to State Highways or Interstates and are accessible through frequent transit service. Target markets  encompass the surrounding neighborhoods, the broader community, and even the wider region. The built  environment could include freestanding businesses, shopping areas, employment centers, and apartment  buildings. Envisioned as compact urban development areas that serve as gateways to the city and as activity  centers for the community, they allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of  uses within every building   Employment Subdistrict (MU‐E)—This subdistrict is similar to the Community Subdistrict, but the focus is on  employment in a variety of settings, including light industrial uses. No residential uses are allowed in these  areas.   (d) Dimensional Standards.   (1) Front Yards.   a. Building façades must be located within the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks.   b. If there is more than one front yard, staff will determine the assignment of the primary and  secondary front yards.   (2) Building Height.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 2 of 9  a. Building height in each of the Subdistricts reflects the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as  follows:   Subdistrict Scale Min. Height Max. Stories Max. Height  MU‐N  Neighborhood  26 feet  4  62 feet   MU‐C  Community  26 feet  6  90 feet   MU‐E  Community  26 feet  6  90 feet     b. Building stepback requirements for upper stories shall be 15 feet from the façade of the story  below.   c. Stories are measured as follows:   i. Stories are measured from finished floor to finished ceiling.   ii. Ground floor height is subject to the following requirements:   1) Ground floor height must be no less than 12 feet.   2) Ground floor height is limited to 20 feet, above which it counts as an additional  story.   iii. Stories above the ground floor are limited to 14 feet in height.   iv. The following projections are exempt from building height restrictions:   1) Chimneys, vents, or antennas   2) Spires, belfries, domes, or architectural finials   3) Mechanical equipment or elevator penthouses   (3) Façades.   a. Building entries must be provided along street frontages as follows:   i. The primary building entrance must be located along a street frontage.   ii. One entry must be provided for every 80 feet of building façade. Where a building fronts  onto two or more streets, the façade of a secondary front yard under 50 feet in length is  exempt from the entry requirement.   iii. Building entries may be recessed from the façade up to six feet in depth   b. Encroachments are permitted as follows:   i. Underground parking within the front yard setback provided the structure is not visible  from the sidewalk.   ii. Roof overhangs, cornices, window and door surrounds, and other façade decorations may  encroach up to two feet into the front yard setback.   iii. Canopies and awnings with a right‐of‐way permit may encroach into the public right‐of‐way  to within two feet of the curb. A minimum clearance of 12 feet above the sidewalk is  required.   iv. Storefront display windows may project into the front yard setback no more than five feet  and not beyond the property line   v. Balconies, bay windows, and bow windows may encroach into the front yard setback up to  three feet.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 3 of 9  (e) Uses.   (1) Multiple uses within a single parcel or building are encouraged.   (2) Home Occupations. The use of a dwelling for an occupation or profession shall be allowed for units that  have direct access to the public right‐of‐way, subject to the following requirements:   a. The business of the home occupation must be conducted by a person who resides in the dwelling  unit. The business shall not employ more than two workers on‐site at any one time who live  outside of the unit.   b. A home occupation shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, excessive sewage or  water use or garbage service, electrical, radio, or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the  health, safety, enjoyment, and general welfare of the surrounding area.   c. The business component may include offices, small service establishments, home crafts which  are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retailing associated with fine arts,  crafts, or personal services. It may not include a commercial food service requiring a license, a  limousine business or auto service, repair for any vehicles other than those registered to  residents of the property, or the sale or repair of firearms.   d. Clients, deliveries, and other business activity shall be limited to the hours of 8 am to 9 pm.   e. All buildings that permit home occupations shall adopt rules to regulate their operations in order  to ensure that these units function harmoniously with other tenants within the building.   (3) Uses in the Mixed Use Zoning District are subject to the requirements listed in Subsection (f) where the  use notations have the following meanings:   P—Permitted   R—Permitted subject to restrictions   C—Allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit   N—Not permitted   (f) Subdistrict Standards.   (1) Neighborhood Mixed Use (MU‐N) Subdistrict.   a. Principle Structure Setbacks.   i. Primary front yard ‐ three feet minimum to 12 feet maximum.   ii. Secondary front yard ‐ six feet minimum to 15 feet maximum.   iii. Front yard across a public right‐of‐way from an R‐1 or R‐2 zoned property ‐ 10 feet  minimum to 15 feet maximum.   iv. Side property line ‐ 50 feet abutting R‐1 or R‐2 districts; 10 feet abutting all other districts.   v. Rear property line ‐ 75 feet abutting R‐1 or R‐2 districts; 15 feet abutting all other districts.   b. Parking and Storage Setbacks.   i. Primary front yard ‐ 30 feet.   ii. Secondary front yard ‐ 15 feet.   iii. Side property line ‐ six feet.   iv. Rear property line ‐ six feet.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 4 of 9  c. Height.   i. Minimum ‐ 26 feet.   ii. Maximum ‐ four stories or 62 feet, whichever is less.   iii. Parking structure maximum ‐ building height less one story.   iv. Building height limited to two stories or 34 feet, whichever is less, within 75 feet of R‐1 or  R‐2 zoned properties.   d. Stepbacks.   i. 15 foot minimum stepback is required above three stories for frontages on rights‐of‐way  less than 70 feet in width   e. Lot Coverage.   i. Impervious maximum ‐ 85%   ii. Non‐structure coverage maximum ‐ 15%   iii. Useable outdoor space minimum ‐ 10%   f. Uses.     Restrictions   RESIDENTIAL    Units within a mixed use building  P     Multifamily dwellings (three or more units)  P     Senior and disability housing  P     Home occupations  R  See Subsection (e)(2) above   Single‐family dwellings  N         COMMERCIAL    Medical clinics  P     Restaurants, brewpubs  P     General retail/service  R  20,000 square feet maximum gross floor area   Breweries  P     Taprooms  C     Micro‐distilleries  P     Cocktail rooms  C     Parking  R  Only as accessory to principal use   Child care  C     Drive‐thru facilities  C  Must follow the requirements of Subsection (g)(3)  below   Gasoline sales and automotive repair  N     Self‐storage  N     Outdoor storage  N     Sale or repair of firearms  N     Firing range  N         OFFICE    Financial institutions without drive‐thru facilities  P               Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 5 of 9  Financial institutions with drive‐thru facilities  C     Offices up to 5,000 gross square feet per floor  P     Offices more than 5,000 gross square feet per floor  C         INSTITUTIONAL    Civic  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum   Medical  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum   Assembly  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum     (2) Community Mixed Use (MU‐C) Subdistrict.   a. Principle Structure Setbacks.   i. Primary front yard ‐ five feet minimum to 15 feet maximum.   ii. Secondary front yard ‐ 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum.   iii. Front yard across a public right‐of‐way from an R‐1 or R‐2 zoned property ‐ 10 feet  minimum to 15 feet maximum.   iv. Side property line ‐ 50 feet abutting R‐1 or R‐2 districts; 10 feet abutting all other districts.   v. Rear property line ‐ 75 feet abutting R‐1 or R‐2 districts; 25 feet abutting all other districts.   b. Parking and Storage Setbacks.   i. Primary front yard ‐ 30 feet.   ii. Secondary front yard ‐ 15 feet.   iii. Side property line ‐ six feet.   iv. Rear property line ‐ six feet.   c. Height.   i. Minimum ‐ 26 feet.   ii. Maximum ‐ six stories or 90 feet, whichever is less.   iii. Parking structure maximum ‐ building height less one story.   iv. Building height limited to two stories or 34 feet, whichever is less, within 75 feet of R‐1 or  R‐2 zoned properties.   d. Stepbacks.   i. 15 foot minimum stepback is required above three stories for frontages on rights‐of‐way  less than 70 feet in width.   e. Lot Coverage.   i. Impervious maximum ‐ 80%   ii. Non‐structure coverage maximum ‐ 20%   iii. Useable outdoor space minimum ‐ 15%   f. Uses.     Restrictions             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 6 of 9  RESIDENTIAL    Units within a mixed use building  P     Multifamily dwellings (three or more units)  P     Senior and disability housing  P     Home occupations  R  See Subsection (e)(2) above   Single‐family dwellings  N         COMMERCIAL    Medical clinics  P     Hotels  P     Restaurants, brewpubs  P     General retail/service  R  30,000 square feet maximum gross floor area   Breweries  P     Taprooms  C     Micro‐distilleries  P     Cocktail rooms  C     Parking  R  Only as accessory to principal use   Child care  C     Drive‐thru facilities  C  Must follow the requirements of Subsection (g)(3)  below   Gasoline sales and automotive repair  N     Self‐storage  N     Outdoor storage  N     Sale or repair of firearms  N     Firing range  N         OFFICE    Financial institutions without drive‐thru facilities  P     Financial institutions with drive‐thru facilities  C     Offices up to 7,000 gross square feet per floor  P     Offices more than 7,000 gross square feet per floor  C         INSTITUTIONAL    Civic  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum   Medical  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum   Assembly  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum     (3) Employment Mixed Use (MU‐E) Subdistrict.   a. Principle Structure Setbacks.   i. Primary front yard ‐ five feet minimum to 15 feet maximum.   ii. Secondary front yard ‐ 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum.   iii. Front yard across a public right‐of‐way from an R‐1 or R‐2 zoned property ‐ 10 feet  minimum to 15 feet maximum.   iv. Side property line ‐ 50 feet abutting R‐1 or R‐2 districts; 10 feet abutting all other districts.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 7 of 9  v. Rear property line ‐ 75 feet abutting R‐1 or R‐2 districts; 25 feet abutting all other districts.   b. Parking and Storage Setbacks.   i. Primary front yard ‐ 30 feet.   ii. Secondary front yard ‐ 15 feet.   iii. Side property line ‐ six feet.   iv. Rear property line ‐ six feet.   c. Height.   i. Minimum ‐ 26 feet.   ii. Maximum ‐ six stories or 90 feet, whichever is less.   iii. Parking structure maximum ‐ building height less one story.   iv. Building height limited to two stories or 34 feet, whichever is less, within 75 feet of R‐1 or  R‐2 zoned properties.   d. Stepbacks.   i. 15 foot minimum stepback is required above three stories for frontages on rights‐of‐way  less than 70 feet in width.   e. Lot Coverage.   i. Impervious maximum ‐ 80%   ii. Non‐structure coverage maximum ‐ 20%   iii. Useable outdoor space minimum ‐ 15%   f. Uses.     Restrictions   COMMERCIAL    Medical clinics  P     Hotels  P     Restaurants, brewpubs  P     General retail/service  R  30,000 square feet maximum gross floor area   Breweries  P     Taprooms  C     Micro‐distilleries  P     Cocktail rooms  C     Parking  R  Only as accessory to principal use   Child care  C     Drive‐thru facilities  C  Must follow the requirements of Subsection (g)(3)  below   Gasoline sales and automotive repair  N     Self‐storage  N     Outdoor storage  N     Sale or repair of firearms  N     Firing range  N                   Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 8 of 9  OFFICE    Financial institutions without drive‐thru facilities  P     Financial institutions with drive‐thru facilities  C     Offices up to 10,000 gross square feet per floor  P     Offices more than 10,000 gross square feet per  floor   C         INSTITUTIONAL    Civic  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum   Medical  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum   Assembly  R  50 surface lot parking spaces maximum       LIGHT INDUSTRIAL    Light manufacturing, R&D, or collaborative work  spaces that do not constitute a nuisance or health  hazard to adjacent properties   P     Warehouses  C       (g) Development Standards.   (1) Parking.   a. Required parking. Minimum required parking may be fulfilled in the following locations:   i. Off‐street parking shall be located to the side and rear of buildings.   ii. Spaces may be provided on‐site or between multiple connected sites with a recorded  shared parking agreement.   iii. Spaces may be leased from a private or public parking facility with a shared parking  agreement with the parking facility owner.   b. Access.   i. Driveways are limited to 20 feet in width.   ii. Sites with alley access must use the alley for ingress and egress.   iii. Pedestrian access to off‐street parking must be provided from front yards.   c. Screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks, and paths with a  masonry wall or evergreen hedge not less than 50 percent opaque on a year‐round basis. The  height of the screening shall be between 36 and 48 inches.   d. Structured parking. The ground floor of any parking structure abutting a public street must have  habitable space for a depth of 30 feet facing the street.   i. Upper floors must be designed and detailed in a manner consistent with adjacent buildings.   ii. Entrances shall be located to minimize conflicts with pedestrian movement.   iii. Ramped floors are prohibited.   (2) Pedestrian Circulation.   a. Sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, and sidewalk and trail design shall be  consistent with the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:01 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 9 of 9  b. Walkways of at least six feet in width are required along all building facades that abut parking  areas.   c. A well‐defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the sidewalk to each primary entrance of a  building.   (3) Drive‐thru Facilities.   a. Facilities and lanes shall be located behind the principal structure.   b. Queuing lanes shall not interfere with pedestrian circulation.   c. Drive‐through canopies and other structures shall be constructed from the same materials as the  principal structure and with a similar level of architectural quality and details.   (4) Outdoor Dining Areas. Outdoor seating is permitted within rights‐of‐way, provided that sidewalks  remain clear to a width of five feet.   (5) Landscaping. In addition to the minimum landscaping requirements listed in Sec. 111‐8, the six foot  parking and storage setback areas along the side and rear property lines shall be landscaped, planted,  and maintained as a green buffer.   (6) Public Art. Public art is encouraged as a component of new development.   (Ord. No. 669 , § 1, 9‐3‐2019)  Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 669 , § 1, adopted Sept. 3, 2019, repealed the former § 113‐97, and enacted a new §  113‐97 as set out herein. The former § 113‐97 pertained to I‐394 mixed use zoning district and derived from  Code 1988, § 11.47; Ord. No. 397, 2nd Series, adopted June 6, 2008; Ord. No. 540, 2nd Series, adopted Jan.  30, 2015; Ord. No. 567, 2nd Series, adopted July 30, 2015.               Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:02 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 1 of 6  Sec. 113‐157. Architectural and Material Standards.  (a) Purpose. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that:   (1) Development and redevelopment within the city is held to a high standard with respect to visual  quality.   (2) Structural and ornamental elements are utilized to maximize variety and architectural interest.   (3) Building façades facing the public realm are active and engaging.   (4) The built environment is maintained in good condition.   (b) General Standards.   (1) Architectural.   a. Massing shall be varied to incorporate staggered building components, recessed doorways, and  other elements that provide visual interest.   b. Roof lines shall include pitched roofs, dormers, gable or hip roof accents, parapets, cornices, and  other interesting profiles.   c. Buildings shall include consistent architectural treatment on all façades and all sides of a building  shall include compatible materials.   d. Focal features shall add interest or distinction to a building.   (2) Materials. Exterior materials shall be divided into Class I, Class II, Class III, and Prohibited categories as  follows:   Class I Brick    Natural stone    Glass    Copper    Porcelain    Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as  recommended by the Planning Commission      Class II Masonry/textured cement stucco    Specialty concrete block    Architecturally textured concrete precast panels    Artificial stone    Artificial stucco    Fiber reinforced cement board siding    Prefinished metal    Cast‐in‐place concrete    Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as  recommended by the Planning Commission      Class III Unpainted or surface painted concrete block    Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels    Unfinished or surface painted metal    Wood             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:02 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 2 of 6   Glass block    Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as  recommended by the Planning Commission      Prohibited Sand lime brick    Unfinished structural clay tile    Exposed unfinished concrete     (c) Rowhouses in Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning Districts.  (1) Architectural.  a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals  by:   1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade   2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color   3. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies   Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to  the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or  awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one‐story building.   b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and  enhance security. Windows and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of  the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at  least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades.   On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 15 percent of the façade area.   Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and  out of buildings. Window shape, size, and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization  and articulation of the building façade.   c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building  fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and  defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details.   d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse  and recycling containers, and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be screened  from off‐site views. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right‐of‐way  by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the  rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials and architectural features of the  building.   (2) Materials.  a. Front façades, and side are rear façades visible from the public right‐of‐way, shall be composed  of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right‐of‐way shall be composed of at least 40%  Class I materials and no more than Class III materials.   c. Each façade must utilize a minimum of two types of Class I materials.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:02 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 3 of 6  (d) Medium Density Residential (R‐3) and High Density Residential (R‐4) Zoning Districts.   (1) Architectural.   a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals  by:   1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade   2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color   3. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies   Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to  the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or  awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one‐story building.   b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and  enhance security. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door  openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the  primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the  side and rear ground floor façades.   Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall  comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street.  Window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the areas of the side and rear  ground floor façades.   On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 15 percent of the façade area.   Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and  out of buildings. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns  shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade.   c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building  fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be  lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details.   d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse  and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment  must be inside a building or be screened from off‐site views. Overhead doors shall be located on  side or rear façades that do not front a public right‐of‐way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened  from view from the public right‐of‐way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends  at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior  materials and architectural features of the building.   (2) Materials.   a. Front façades, and side and rear façades visible from the public right‐of‐way, shall be composed  of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right‐of‐way shall be composed of at least 40%  Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   c. Each façade must utilize a minimum of two types of Class I materials.   (e) Commercial, Office, and Institutional Zoning Districts.   (1) Architectural.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:02 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 4 of 6  a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals  by:   1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade   2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color   3. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies   Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to  the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or  awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one‐story building.   b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and  enhance security. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 60 percent of the length of  the front façade and 30 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street.  Window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the side and rear  ground floor façades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 20 percent of the façade  area.   Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and  out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked by storage, shelving, mechanical equipment, or other  visual barriers. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns  shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade.   c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building  fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be  lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details.   d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse  and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment  must be inside a building or be screened from off‐site views. Overhead doors shall be located on  side or rear façades that do not front a public right‐of‐way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened  from view from the public right‐of‐way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends  at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior  materials and architectural features of the building.   (2) Materials.   a. Front façades, and side and rear façades visible from the public right‐of‐way, shall be composed  of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right‐of‐way shall be composed of at least 40%  Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   c. Each façade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials.   (f) Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts.   (1) Architectural.   a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals  by:   1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade   2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color   3. Placement of doors and windows             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:02 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 5 of 6  Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to  the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or  awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one‐story building.   b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and  enhance security. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 60 percent of the length of  the front façade and 30 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street.  Window and door opening shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear  ground floor façades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 20 percent of the façade  area.   Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and  out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked by storage, shelving, mechanical equipment, or other  visual barriers. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns  shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade.   c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building  fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be  lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details.   d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse  and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment  must be inside a building or be screened from off‐site views. Overhead doors shall be located on  side or rear façades that do not front a public right‐of‐way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened  from view from the public right‐of‐way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends  at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior  materials and architectural features of the building.   (2) Materials.   a. Front, side, and rear façades adjacent to or facing a property zoned Residential, Commercial,  Office, Institutional, or Mixed Use across a public right‐of‐way shall be composed of at least 50%  Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   b. All other front façades shall be composed of at least 40% Class I materials and not more than 10%  Class III materials.   c. All other side and rear façades shall be composed of at least 30% Class I materials and no more  than 10% Class III materials.   d. Each façade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials.   (g) Mixed Use Zoning District.   (1) Architectural.   a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals  by:   1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade;   2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color;   3. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies;   Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to  the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or  awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one‐story building.             Created: 2021‐08‐30 19:39:02 [EST]  (Supp. No. 34, Update 2)    Page 6 of 6  b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and  enhance security. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door  openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the  primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the  side and rear ground floor façades.   Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall  comprise at least 60 percent of the length of the front façade and at least 30 percent of the area  of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise  at least 20 percent of the areas of the side and rear ground floor façades.   On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 15 percent of the façade area for residential  uses and 20 percent of the façade area for nonresidential uses.   Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and  out of buildings. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns  shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade.   c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building  fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be  lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details.   d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse  and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment  must be inside a building or be screened from off‐site views. Overhead doors shall be located on  side or rear façades that do not front a public right‐of‐way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened  from view from the public right‐of‐way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends  at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior  materials and architectural features of the building.   (2) Materials.   a. Front façades, and side and rear façades visible from the public right‐of‐way, shall be composed  of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right‐of‐way shall be composed of at least 40%  Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.   c. Each façade must utilize a minimum of two types of Class I materials.   (h) Additions and Expansions.   (1) Architectural. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors, textures, major divisions,  proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character, including horizontal or vertical  emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, and exterior alterations shall address and respect the  original architectural design and general appearance of the principal building on the site and shall  comply with the requirements of this section.   (2) Materials. All façades of a building addition or expansion shall be composed of at least 90% Class I  materials until the appropriate minimum Class I percentage standards for the building are met.   (Ord. No. 664 , § 1, 6‐4‐2019; Ord. No. 687 , §§ 1, 2, 8‐18‐2020; Ord. No. 705 , § 14, 3‐16‐2021)