Loading...
pc-agenda-aug-23-21       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 177 709 2654. Members of the public wishing to address the Planning Commission during  public comment sections should call 763‐593‐8060.    1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  August 9, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting    4. Informal Public Hearing – Consideration of Preliminary Plat  Address: 8810 10th Avenue North  Applicant: Academy of Whole Learning    5. Informal Public Hearing – Preliminary Plan for Golden Valley Country Club Villas PUD No. 126  Address: 7001 Golden Valley Road  Applicant: Ron Clark Construction    6. Discussion – Accessory Dwelling Units       – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 177 709 2654.      7. Council Liaison Report    8. Other Business  a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings    9. Adjournment  August 23, 2021 – 7 pm         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. Chair Pockl introduced a new Planning  Commissioner, Michael Ruby.     Roll Call  Commissioners in person:  Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Mike Ruby, Chuck   Segelbaum   Commissioners virtual:    None  Commissioners absent:   Rich Baker  Staff present:     Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner   Council Liaison present:   Gillian Rosenquist    2. Approval of Agenda  Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  Commissioner Johnson commented that Comp Plan alignment was not on the agenda that evening.  He added that staff stated there was a 9‐month deadline and it seems that has lapsed.   MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve the  agenda of August 9, 2021. Motion carried.    3. Approval of Minutes  Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from July 26, 2021.  Commissioner Segelbaum noted a typo that states he was absent.  MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve  minutes, with additions. Motion carried.    4. Public Hearing – Pawn Shops, Precious Metal Dealers, and Payday Lenders  Applicant: The City of Golden Valley    Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded the group that in August 2020 Council placed a moratorium on  new pawnshops, precious metal dealers, and payday lenders. Staff had planned to table further  zoning discussion until licensing amendments were further developed, however the interim  ordinance establishing the use moratorium cannot be extended. Therefore, the City Manager has  August 9, 2021 – 7 pm    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 9, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       2  directed staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with a recommendation to City Council for  adopting reasonable zoning regulations in August 2021.  Campbell recapped the July 26th meeting to bring Commissioner Ruby up to speed and remind other  Commissioners about the conversation.   Staff reviewed Commissioner modifications and answered questions around the City’s ability to  prohibit these uses, land use regulation, the benefits to alternative banking, and the proposed  language.     Campbell presented specific edits in the proposed new code language.    Recommended Action   Staff recommends amending the text of Section 113‐1: Definitions and Section 113‐92: Commercial (C)  Zoning District, in order to better regulate pawnshops, precious metal dealers, consumer small loan  lenders and currency exchanges.    Commissioner Segelbaum asked about definition of pawnshop and staff reviewed in code.   Commissioner Johnson asked if definitions of use are consistent with state law and if there were  probations against bars on windows and if that conflicts with visibility regulations. Staff reviewed code  language and discussed that bars aren’t considered a visibility restriction. The discussion moved on to  a potential buffer and a map illustrating potential buffers was utilized. Peer community buffer zones  were discussed as well.     Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:35pm  There were no callers  Chair Pockl closed the hearing at 7:45pm    Segelbaum thanked staff for the review on the discussion and said the proposed recommended action  makes sense. He added he’s not drawn to one buffer size over another. Pockl echoed these statements  and Commissioners discussed buffers of these services from each other versus buffers from other uses.   Commissioner Brookins stated his support for staff recommendation.   Window visibility, material standards, and sign requirements were discussed.    MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to follow staff  recommendation to amend the text of Section 113‐1: Definitions and Section 113‐92: Commercial (C)  Zoning District, in order to better regulate pawnshops, precious metal dealers, consumer small loan  lenders and currency exchanges.  No discussion on the motion.    The motion passed unanimously.     Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 7:52 pm      City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 9, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       3  5. Council Liaison Report   Council Member Rosenquist discussed the Facilities Study and said that staff would be giving tours of  the current facilities to interested members of the public at upcoming Market in the Valley events on  August 15 and September 12. She noted that the PEACE Commission had been approved and that the  Council would be holding interviews with potential Commissioners soon with the goal of being up and  running by October. She also reported that budget discussions would be beginning at the upcoming  Council Work Session.    6. Other Business  Planning Manager Zimmerman reported that there was money in the budget for any interested  Planning Commissioners to attend the virtual State Planning Conference in late September. More  information about sessions and registration will be forthcoming.    Commissioner Johnson returned to the topic of concluding the rezonings required by the City’s Comp  Plan. Zimmerman discussed the reasons why staff thought it was appropriate to wait to consider  rezoning the Hwy 55/Winnetka/Harold corner, including the proposed traffic study for the Downtown  Area and the planned Hwy 55 BRT study. He reported that the rezoning of downtown properties would  happen in conjunction with the final report from the consultant, which was coming in the next few  weeks. Johnson and Brookins expressed interest in moving on both of these quickly and not waiting.    7. Adjournment  MOTION by Commissioner Segelbaum to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and  approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:24 pm.                                                                                                          ________________________________                                                                                                  Andy Johnson, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant    1      Date:  August 23, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:    Informal Public Hearing – Preliminary Plan for Golden Valley Country Club Villas  PUD No. 126 – 7001 Golden Valley Road   Property address: 7001 Golden Valley Road  Property owner: Golden Valley Country Club  Applicant: Ron Clark Construction    Lot size: 2.25 acres  Zoning district: Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Future land use: Low Density Residential  Current use: Open Space    Proposed use: Low Density Residential  Adjacent uses: Golf Course (East and South); Single‐Family Residential (North and West)    2020 aerial photo (Hennepin County)    2      Summary  Ron Clark Construction is seeking approval of a Planning Unit Development (PUD) to construct  seven new single‐family homes on the northwestly portion of the Golden Valley Country Club  property located at 7001 Golden Valley Road. The PUD would be necessary due to the design of the  individual home lots, which are more compact than what is allowed by code, as well as the  inclusion of a communal open space towards the existing street intersection.     Background  City staff were first approached by the Country Club in late 2019 about the potential  redevelopment for portions of their 148+ acre property. The Club had identified areas of the  property which were not used for active play on the golf course. This site in the northwest corner  of the lot was first marketed to builders and investors in late Spring of 2020, following which, the  Club selected Ron Clark Construction to partner with on the redevelopment.    At its April 12th meeting, the Planning Commission held an informal public hearing on the rezoning  and reguiding of the land, which would be required to redevelop the site with anything other than  institutional uses. The Planning Commission heard from a number of residents at this meeting, and  the Commission had a split vote (3‐2) to recommend denial of these changes.    The items went to the City Council on May 4th for the subsequent formal public hearing. The  Council considered the arguments made by Planning Commission, however they ultimately felt  comfortable approving the change in land use and zoning. They voted unanimously to approve the  change in land use, subject to external review by the Metropolitan Council, given that this action  would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning was tabled by the Council  till this amendment could be reviewed.    Staff was notified in July by the Metropolitan Council that the Amendment had been approved,  with one advisory comment about regional sewer infrastructure underneath Pennsylvania Ave N.  On August 4th, the rezoning of the property from Institutional (I‐4) to Single‐Family Residential (R‐1)  was approved by City Council.    On August 16, a neighborhood meeting was held prior to this informal public hearing for the  Preliminary PUD. The meeting was held in person at City Hall and was attended by three neighbors  of the proposed development. Neighbors raised concerns about the potential height and setbacks  of these new units, but were more supportive of the new through street to serve them, the  proposed bike/pedestrian amenities, and hoped that these units would be connected with the  larger neighborhood.     3    Existing Conditions  The proposed redevelopment area is approximately 2.25  acres in size. It is currently still a part of the larger Country  Club parcel; the PUD process would establish the new  parcels similar to a subdivision, with individual lots for  each of the homes as well as the community areas and  those dedicated solely to storm water management.      The proposed property would be located in the southeast  quadrant of the Pennsylvania and Plymouth Ave  intersection. As noted in the request summary, the site is  surrounded on its south and east sides by the golf course,  with other existing single‐family residential properties  across both public right‐of‐ways. There are no other land  use types in the immediate area until you get further south  along Pennsylvania to Calvary Lutheran Church.    There are currently no structures of any kind located on this portion  of the Country Club property; the site is identified as forested area  in the City’s natural resources inventory.  This wooded area along  Bassett Creek is part of a 'Green Corridor' and is shown in the 2040  Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Natural Resources Chapter. A  preliminary tree inventory has been completed for the site, 206  trees in total were identified, with 156 of them being considered  significant trees, and four being considered legacy trees under City  Code. The following definitions are provided by code for significant  and legacy trees:     Significant Tree: A healthy tree not considered a nuisance under  City regulations measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter for  hardwood deciduous trees, as defined herein, or a minimum of 12  inches in diameter for softwood deciduous trees, as defined  herein, or a minimum of four inches in diameter for coniferous  trees. All other trees that do not meet this definition are not considered significant.    Legacy Tree: A healthy hardwood deciduous tree measuring 30 inches or greater in diameter  and/or a coniferous tree measuring 24 inches or greater in diameter.    A full copy of the Tree Inventory is included with the attachments of this memo. This inventory also  provides details on the types of trees found by the project team. The site contains many desirable  significant trees including black locust, walnut, cherry, pine, elm, hackberry, maple/boxelder, and  oak. The developer is proposing to remove approximately 147 significant and legacy trees and  replant approximately 50 trees as part of the mitigation effort required under the Tree and  Landscape section of City Code.    4      Other environmental factors to note include the site’s topography and proximity to Bassett Creek.  Based on City mapping records, the site’s highest elevations can be found closest to the street  intersection in the northwest corner of the potential parcel, and that elevation then drops as you  move south along Pennsylvania and east along Plymouth. This topography has significant impacts  on the method of storm water management used to serve the development. Water runoff will  need to be carefully managed and directed in order to avoid erosion and untreated stormwater  entering Bassett Creek.     The elevation is sufficient to keep the majority of the site above the modeled floodway for Bassett  Creek, which is located just to the southeast of the development area. A portion of the property to  be developed would fall within the Shoreland Management Area, which is defined in City Code as  300 feet from a creek or stream. This will have impacts and requirements regarding the removal  and replacement of vegetation, filling and grading activities, and may require Final Plat review by  the Commissioner of Natural Resources at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources  (MnDNR) as is laid out in the Shoreland Management code.  Additional review is required by the  Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC).    PUD Procedure  For any new Planned Unit Development in the City, code dictates that the proposal go through two  rounds of review at both the Planning Commission and City Council. This is to allow for additional  analysis of these projects, which are often more complex and with a greater number of  considerations in comparison to a by‐right project, or even a less intense approval such as a  conditional use permit.     The Preliminary PUD Plan is meant to give an opportunity for review by appointed and elected  officials and to solicit public feedback. The Preliminary Plan may, and often will, be modified after  this preliminary review, based on the feedback from City staff, City officials, and the public. The City  PUD regulations provide the following direction for the Preliminary Review at Planning  Commission:    1. Informal Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold an informal public hearing and  consider the application for consistency with the intent and purpose provisions in Subsection (a)  of this section and other requirements of this section and principles and standards adhered to in  the City. The Planning Commission's report to the City Council shall include recommended  changes, conditions, or modifications.  2. Recommendation. The findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be  forwarded to the City Council and may include recommended conditions and modifications to  the preliminary PUD plan.    As noted in the code, the Planning Commission’s role in evaluating a Preliminary PUD Plan is in  some parts discretionary and in others dictated by code. The PUD code lays out minimum  standards that must be applied to any new PUD, but in its findings of fact and for the PUD amenity  points, much of the review and consideration by both Planning Commission and City Council is    5    subjective. As an example, a PUD needs to hit a certain threshold of impervious surface site‐wide,  but the City Council may ask for additional landscaping to better align with a goal or policy of the  Comprehensive Plan. When considering conditions and modifications for a Preliminary PUD Plan,  they should in all cases be tailored to address areas of the PUD that relate back to the major  findings necessary for approval such as efficiency or preservation.     Following the informal public hearing at Planning Commission, Commissioners will vote on whether  or not to recommend approval or denial of Preliminary Plan to the City Council. In the case of  recommending approval, they may also include their own recommended conditions or  modifications, to be acted upon prior to the Final PUD Plan. If the City Council approves the  Preliminary Plan, with or without conditions, the applicant then needs to return to both bodies  with their Final PUD Plan. An additional consideration for the Planning Commission during their  review of the final plan would be whether it is consistent with the preliminary plan and those  conditions placed upon that plan.     Summary of Proposal  The applicant is seeking to build seven single‐family  homes on the 2.25 acre site. Homes would have two  stories: a main level visible from the existing right‐of‐ way and a lower level that would face towards the  Country Club and Bassett Creek. Each home would also  include an attached garage supporting two to three  cars and storage, either a side‐by‐side or tandem‐style  garage. Concept floorplans are included in the  attachments, as well as some example exteriors from  other projects completed by the applicant, to get an  idea of the architectural style. The City Code does not  require any architectural or material standards for R‐1  zoned properties, but they have occasionally been  included as conditions of approval in previous PUDs.     The applicant is seeking to develop these homes on  smaller lots than are typically required for a new  subdivision. The minimum lot size in R‐1 is 10,000  square feet. Only one of the seven home lots would be  above this threshold, with the average lot size being roughly 7,788 square feet. Despite the smaller  lot size and reduced setbacks in‐between homes, this development would still fall within the  guided density ranges from the Comprehensive Plan for low‐density residential (1‐4 units per acre).  This is due to shifting the excess land to open space outlots that would provide either space for  storm water management, tree and landscaping elements, public amenities, or a combination of all  three. The outlier amongst the three outlots is Outlot B, which appears to only serve as additional  private open space for the use of the Country Club, with some replanted trees along the boundary  with Plymouth Avenue.     1  2 3  4 5  6  7  A B  C    6    The applicant has stated these homes are in part being marketed as low‐maintenance options for a  person who wants to live in a single‐family home in Golden Valley, but without some of the upkeep  and maintenance that come with larger individual yards. In addition, a Home Owner’s Association  would be utilized to manage common areas, lawn and landscaping care, snow removal for  driveways and private walks, and maintenance of private utilities.     The applicant is proposing to pull these homes back from the existing right‐of‐way and homes  along Pennsylvania Avenue. This should result in increased privacy for both the existing and new  home owners. Instead of having separate private access off the existing streets for each unit, the  PUD includes a new street to provide access to the homes and some on‐street parking. If  constructed to meet city code and engineering standards, the street could be considered public  and could therefore be maintained by the City in terms of snow removal, sweeping, repaving, etc.  The watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewers located under the public street, as well as any  street lighting serving the development, could also be owned and maintained by the City if  constructed to meet city standards. There would also be some buried private utilities and services  located within the street corridor and throughout the development to serve the new units.     While the new homes would be pulled further away from neighboring properties, the front setback  from the homes to this new street would be 23’ to the back of the curb, which is less than the  typical 35’ to the property line that is required for R‐1 properties. This is also measured to the curb  itself rather than the front property line, which the city typically uses to calculate front setbacks.  Looking at the seven lots, the distance to the front property line would vary drastically, but the  minimum would be lot 6, which has around 15’ between the front corner of the garage and the  property line. This short front setback is somewhat mitigated however, due to the separation from  homes along Plymouth with the new street and open space area.     The area to the west of this new street would be maintained as Outlot A under the PUD. The area  would contain the largest of three underground storm water management systems on the site. In  addition, it’s in this area that the applicant is considering adding a number of their proposed public  amenities. While not reflected on the Preliminary Plat, the applicant is considering including a  pedestrian/bicycle rest area along Pennsylvania Ave N. This section of Pennsylvania is identified in  the City’s bike/ped plan as a future signed bike route, connecting the Luce Line Trail to the south  with the Pennsylvania Woods area to the north. The applicant is also hoping to include public art  features in conjunction with this rest area and planned landscaping. Plaques containing historic  information about the area, Bassett Creek, indigenous communities, and the Golden Valley Country  Club have been offered as potential topic areas for these installations. These amenities would be  maintained by the eventual HOA, and as such would require maintenance agreements with the City  to ensure their quality and usability into the future. Given the lack of information included in the  preliminary plan, staff would recommend a condition of approval requiring additional details  regarding the location, design, and maintenance of these public amenities prior to the Final PUD  Plan.     Additional public amenities proposed by the applicant include electric car vehicle charging stations.  In order to qualify for the associated amenity point, stations must be provided at a rate of 5% of    7    the overall required parking spaces within the PUD. Code requires two spaces per dwelling unit,  meaning that with a minimum of 14 off‐street parking spaces, only one would need to be a  charging station. The applicant is also seeking PUD amenity credit for building these homes  according to the guidelines of the Minnesota Greenpath Certification program. Additional details  on this program are provided with the application materials. This program is similar to LEED in that  it encourages greater energy and environmental efficiencies in new buildings, however it to a lesser  degree of impact than LEED Gold, which is identified in the City Code as an Amenity feature.  Greenpath Advanced Certification would be required for the seven new homes. To give an idea of  what this certification would require, the homes would need to be inspected and tested after  construction and achieve an energy efficiency greater than 50% of a home built using the state  energy code today, and 70% more efficient than an older home being resold today.     Land Use and Zoning Considerations  The PUD site is guided for low density residential, and zoned for single‐family residential (R‐1). The  proposal for seven single‐family homes over 2.25 acres is consistent with the purpose of the zoning  district, to provide for single‐family detached units. The proposal is also consistent with the intent  of the long‐term land use guidance, and the density range of 1‐4 units per acre as described in the  Comprehensive Plan. The following flexibilities from the zoning and subdivision code requirements  is requested:     R‐1 District Proposed PUD  Subdivision Requirements  Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft.  Varies, lot 7 exceeds minimum,  lots 1‐6 are under. Minimum  area is lot 3 at 5,992 sq. ft.  Minimum Lot  Width  80’, 100’ for corner lots Varies, minimum is lot 6 at 33’  District Standards  Front yard setback 35’, 30’ for open porch 23’ from curb for all lots, setback  from property line varies but  minimum is 15.5’ for lot 6  Side yard setback 15’ for lots over 100 feet  12.5’ for lots 65‐100 feet  Under 65 foot lots:     10% lot width on North & West     20% lot width on South & East     No less than 5’ on either side  5’      Side‐Street Setback 35’ cannot reduce building envelope  to less than 27’  10’  Rear yard setback 25’  20’  Side Wall  Articulation  Side wall longer than 32’ in length  must be articulated, with a shift of at  least two feet in depth, for at least  No articulation indicated.    8      Fire Safety Considerations  Staff from the Fire Department had relatively few comments based on the proposal. The street  having multiple access points eliminates any need for the fire department to determine adequate  turning radiuses for their emergency vehicles. And existing public fire hydrants along both  Plymouth and Pennsylvania would provide enough range to access all of the proposed homes.     Building inspections did not that given the 5’ setback between structures, any type of projection  from the homes, such as decorative cornice or roof eaves would need to be fire rated according to  the International Residential Code. This would be confirmed at the time of building permitting.     While not required, due to being served by a public roadway, the Fire Chief recommended that the  builder consider providing sprinklers to the single‐family homes. This could potentially be an option  for homebuyers to opt into given that it is not required, so long as the domestic water utility line  was sized correctly.    Engineering and Environmental Considerations  Engineering staff have reviewed the proposal and, with Planning staff, have had numerous  discussions with the applicant to recommend revisions and modifications as the plans move  towards final PUD submission. While much progress has been made, there are still key areas that  need to be addressed before the proposal would be considered sufficient for meet the required  findings necessary to approval a Final PUD Plan. Many comments and concerns have already  been incorporated into other parts of this memo and are included as conditions of approval.    Survey and Proposed Plat  In addition to minor adjustments to the locations of right‐of‐way, easements, and floodplain and  shoreland notations, staff will continue to look for revisions to the proposed stub of the internal  street to Lots 6 and 7, the justification for Outlot B and if it can be utilized for infrastructure  associated with the development, and the inclusion of shoreland and steep slope areas between  the proposed plat boundary and the centerline of Bassett Creek within the plat or dedicated in a  permanent conservation easement.    Street, Utilities, and Public Improvements  Staff will continue to look for minor revisions and modifications to the civil plans, profiles, and  details to ensure they meet the City’s standards, while noting that any proposed public  improvements must be constructed as part of a public improvement project administered by the  City. Staff will continue to discuss with the developer the details of the public and private  infrastructure and the ownership and maintenance responsibility of the improvements before  submittal of Final PUD Plans.    Stormwater and Grading  eight feet in length, for every 32’ of  wall.    9    A stormwater management plan meeting the minimum requirements has been submitted for  review. Some staff recommendations, revisions, and technical questions remain to be resolved  prior to the submittal of the Final PUD Plan. Larger conversations about the proposed grading  plan and steep slopes within the shoreland area are needed.    Tree and Landscaping Plans  Additional conversations with the applicant are needed to address outstanding concerns  regarding the number of significant and legacy trees that are proposed to be removed, the  proposed mitigation plan, and the species of trees and types of vegetation cover proposed  throughout the development.    Environmental/Sustainability Goals  Staff will encourage the applicant to continue to strengthen their proposals related to energy  efficiency and renewable energy, green building construction, landscaping, and irrigation in order  to help the City advance its environmental goals.    Public Amenity Evaluation  The PUD Public Amenity Point System was added to the City’s PUD requirements in 2015 to better  quantify the values of various public amenities that could be provided by an applicant in order to  balance concessions from the zoning and subdivision code allowed by the City. In order to meet the  requirement, a PUD must provide one or more amenities whose value adds up to at least 5 points.  The table below outlines the Amenities identified by the applicant, their value, and any suggested  modifications to points provided by staff.    Amenity Description Code Value Proposed Amenity  Public Art ‐ The art shall be maintained in  good order for the life of the principal  structure. The art shall be located where   it is highly visible to the public. If located  indoors, such space shall be clearly visible  and easily accessible from adjacent  sidewalks or streets.  3 Plaque or other installation on Outlot  A that would provide details on local  history: Bassett Creek, Country Club,  Golden Valley,   Indigenous Community. No exact   details yet provided by applicant,  seeking Planning Commission and  Council feedback.  Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities ‐  Eligible facilities may include a combination  of the following: heated transit shelter,  bicycle repair tools, rest area, wayfinding  signs, sheltered walkway, woonerf, and  other amenities that increase the  convenience and encourage the use of  public walkways and bikeways beyond what is otherwise required in the underlying  zoning district.  2 Rest area on Outlot A. Benches and  bike racks for people using the public  sidewalk or future bike route. No  exact details yet provided by  applicant, seeking Planning  Commission and Council feedback.     10    Electric car charging station ‐ An electric  vehicle charging station accessible to  residents, employees, and/or the public  providing connections at the rate of five  percent of the required parking spaces.  1 2 homes would have electric vehicle  stations installed already, the  remaining homes would have the  stations roughed in but not installed  (able to be added by future owner). 2 homes exceeds the 5% of minimum  required parking (2 spaces per  dwelling, 5% of 14 spaces is 1 space  rounded up).  Green Path Advanced Certification ‐ Homes  would be constructed to the energy and  environmental standards of the Minnesota  Green Path Advanced Certification Program. Petitioned  Amenity – 2  points  requested  Additional details on the program are provided by the applicant and are  attached to this memo. Generally the  Advanced Certification states to be  50% more energy efficient than a  typical new build home today, and  the homes shown in the preliminary  plan would also qualify for LEED  Silver. City currently only awards 3  points to LEED Gold and 4 points for  LEED Platinum.    Based on the code’s Amenity point values, and the two points requested by the applicant, the  combination of the above would be worth a total of eight points. Staff would suggest that given the  proposed scale and budget of the public art it may be worth only two points. This would still leave  the applicant at over the five points required. Plans do not currently reflect either the art or bicycle  amenities, due in part to staff requesting these amenities be included after the original submittal.  Staff agrees with these amenities in their concept – the two in conjunction with quality landscaping  on Outlot A should make for an excellent pedestrian feature for all local residents as well as those  who might be travelling from further away via bike. However, a final judgement on the amenity  value of these items is highly dependent on what is shown in the Final PUD Plan.    Staff generally feels that the Greenpath certification, while valued as an addition to the PUD,  misses some of the Planning Commission and City Council intention with the PUD ordinance. The  ordinance does award 4 points for LEED Platinum and 3 for Gold, however no points are  automatically awarded for LEED Silver or certified levels of certification. The Advanced Greenpath  Certification is roughly equivalent to the LEED Silver standard, and staff would feel most  comfortable awarding only 1 additional point. With this change, the applicant would still have in  excess of five amenity points.                 11    Findings  In order approve a Preliminary or Final PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings:  Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan must be tailored to the specific characteristics of the site  and achieve a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under  conventional provisions of the zoning chapter.  The applicant has done has good job thus far in developing a site plan to provide a higher  quality project than what would be feasible under code in regards to impacts on the  surrounding properties. In the case of impacts to neighbors, this has been mitigated by  having individual lot access be pulled off of Pennsylvania and Plymouth through the use of a  new local street. In addition, homes have been planned to appear as 1‐story from existing  ROW, but utilize the site’s topography to provide lower level living area for future residents.  In addition, the rest area included as part of Outlot A, and the amenities proposed for that  area seem to be of significant benefit to owners of the new homes, as well as neighboring  properties. The amenities proposed are in scale with the neighborhood, and the bike  amenities in particular would be of benefit along a future bike route identified by the City.  Additional details on these features is a condition of the Preliminary PUD approval, in order  to better determine the value of the public amenities.    Staff also have some questions as to the long‐term purpose of Outlot B, which currently is  proposed to be re‐sodded, with some trees added along the boulevard. While preservation of  open space is consistently a goal of the Comprehensive Plan, open space that is private and  without native vegetation has limited impacts or public benefit. As a condition of approval,  staff is asking the applicant to provide a plan for the outlot, to demonstrate either a capacity  to serve necessary underground utilities, provide natural habitat, or otherwise remove the  outlot from the PUD Plan.  Preservation. The PUD plan must preserve and protect substantial desirable portions of the  site’s characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features including steep  slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters.  Protection of Bassett Creek is evident from the layout of the plan, as well as being  demonstrated in the proposed storm water management plan. Based on city code and the  comprehensive plan, environmental staff’s preference is for storm water to be managed  above‐ground with green infrastructure as an amenity to the site, this is due to the additional  benefits of improved air quality, water quality, natural aesthetics, and providing wildlife  habitat. However if not feasible, then some of the same intents can be met by the inclusion  of additional native vegetation and pollinator habitat in the area that the underground  storage tanks will be located, and additional vegetation preservation and enhancement  within permanent conservation easements near Bassett Creek.     No structures are currently proposed within the required shoreland setbacks from Bassett  Creek, and additional review of clearing, filling and grading work by the BCWMC should help  to further ensure that the Creek, the most critical natural amenity in the immediate area, is  protected from any negative impacts during construction. Staff has also requested additional    12    information on how shoreland requirements are being managed as part of the Final PUD  Plan.     An area that must be addressed is the overall reduction in trees on the site in the proposed  landscaping plan. The vast majority of significant trees are being removed, as well as all four  of the legacy trees. While the applicant is attempting to meet the tree mitigation replanting  requirements, in part by providing upwards of $40,000 or more in tree replacement fees that  could be utilized in other parts of the City, the city code prioritizes replanting  trees within  the PUD. The area around Bassett Creek has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan’s  Parks and Natural Resources Chapter as a Green Corridor, and as such additional trees, native  vegetation, and low‐maintenance grasses will be a condition of the Preliminary plan’s  approval.   Efficient; Effective. The PUD plan must include efficient and effective use of the land (which  includes preservation).  Given the proximity to Bassett Creek, the decision to cluster homes closer together and  provide larger sections of open space makes sense, although staff would like to see  additional native vegetation and trees reintroduced into those open space areas. Pulling the  homes off of Pennsylvania does require a new street to be used to provide lot access,  however this does provide a benefit to existing homes, buffering them slightly from the new  homes and including the public rest area on the intersection corner. A separate street also  reduces the overall number of potential curb cuts along Pennsylvania, which would be the  higher volume street comparatively.     As noted above, staff is recommending a condition to better define the purpose of Outlot B.  This outlot is something of an outlier, with the rest of the PUD area serving a clear and  efficient land use purpose, either providing for homes, utilities, or natural amenities. This and  the question of the area between the PUD and Bassett Creek must be addressed prior to the  submittal of the Final PUD Plan.   Consistency. The PUD plan must result in development that is compatible with adjacent uses  and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.  In terms of consistency with adjacent uses, staff finds the Preliminary Plan to fit well. Other  than the Country Club, the site is surrounded by single‐family zoned properties. Existing lots  in the area range in width from 60‐100+ feet, and while these new homes would have  reduced setbacks from one another, the PUD overall would represent a housing unit density  of just over three units per acre. Within the 1‐4 units guided by the Low Density Land Use  Category and comparable to that of the surrounding area.     Staff generally finds the proposal consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Given that the Golf  Course was not discussed for redevelopment as part of the Comprehensive Plan, staff is  instead reliant on that document’s Goals and Policies.  1. Land Use, Goal 4, Objective 1.4 ‐ Work with developers to provide permanent open space  and park areas in development plans and to integrate native species    13    2. Land Use, Goal 4, Objective 2.3 ‐ Use Planned Unit Developments to allow for flexibility in  site design when needed to preserve vegetation or other sensitive site features or to re‐ introduce natural areas  3. Housing, Goal 2 ‐ Expand the variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a  housing choice for all life stages and all economic means  4. Housing, Goal 4, Objective 1 ‐ Ensure new housing developments meet or exceed energy  efficiency standards, and implement sustainable design features where possible  5. Parks & Natural Resources, Goal 3, Objective 1.2 ‐ Review development proposals for  conformance with ordinances regarding tree preservation, water quality, wetland  protection and mitigation, and shoreland protection  6. Water Resources, Goal 1, Objective 3.2 ‐ Minimize the rate and volume of stormwater  runoff entering Bassett Creek  7. Water Resources, Goal 4, Objective 1.3 ‐ Regulate stormwater runoff discharges and  volumes to minimize flood risk, flood damages, and the future costs of stormwater  management systems    One area where staff would like to see improvements made is again in regard to tree  replacement within the PUD. While fee in lieu of replanting is an option provided by our tree  and landscaping code, providing additional trees on‐site is consistently a theme in all of the  above Comprehensive Plan chapters.  General Health. The PUD plan must be consistent with preserving and improving the general  health, safety, and welfare of the people of the city.  As noted above, the planned storm water management for the site would result in no net  increase in surface water runoff compared to the existing conditions, both in regards to rate  and volume of runoff. Additional conditions aimed at preserving the water quality of the  Creek, such as shoreland restrictions have been included with this Preliminary PUD to further  ensure that water quality is not impacted.     The new street has the benefit of reducing the number of individual access drives, compared  to a traditional subdivision. Instead of 5 or 6 unique drives along Pennsylvania, which slopes  steeply downwards after the intersection limiting visibility, only a single curb cut will be in  place for the new street. This should reduce the amount of places that vehicles can turn  along the road, leading to less opportunity for accidents. Pushing the homes themselves  further off of Pennsylvania should also be of benefit to those existing homes, providing a  buffer between them. While setbacks and lot sizes would be given some flexibility from code,  the proposed homes would be limited to a main and lower level, further mitigating impacts  on surrounding neighbors.  Meets Requirements. The PUD plan must meet the intent and purpose provisions of Section  113‐123 as well as all other provisions.  The purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development code chapter reads,     “It is the intent of this section to provide an optional method of regulating land use which  permits flexibility from the other provisions of the City Code, including flexibility in uses    14    allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot, and similar  regulations in exchange for public benefit in the form of amenities.”    Generally, staff feels the preliminary plans for this development follow the intent of the PUD  code. Areas where flexibilities are being requested (setbacks, ROW, lot size) are all allowed  under the PUD code, and the amenities being proposed are consistent with those highlighted  by the City, such as public art and electric vehicle charging stations. Staff still has some areas  in which they feel more information is necessary, notably in regard to added landscaping,  shoreland demarcation, and the use of Outlot B. Staff does however feel comfortable with  conditioning the approval of the Preliminary Plan on the submittal of this information, and  addressing these outlying questions prior to the submittal of the Final Plan.     Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Golden Valley Country Club Villas PUD No.  126, subject to the following conditions:    1. Final PUD Plans shall include details on the location, design, and other relevant features of  the public amenities being provided, including the public art, pedestrian & bicycle  facilities, and electric vehicle charging stations.   a. Details on the final design or content of the public art may be waived until such  time as the nearby community has been consulted.   2. Final PUD Plans shall be updated to provide individual lot coverage calculations in order to  determine the degree of flexibility being provided from R‐1 district requirements  3. Final PUD Plans shall provide details on the maximum height of the proposed structures  to determine any flexibilities from the City’s Building Envelope requirements.   4. The required park dedication fee shall be paid prior to the release of the final plat.  5. Landscaping must include native vegetation and low maintenance turf alternatives to sod  wherever possible, and especially in common areas, on slopes, and in low‐use areas. Sod  should be avoided within the 50 foot shoreland setback areas and shall not be permitted  in any areas covered by conservation easement  6. Applicant shall provide a copy of the engineered irrigation plan mentioned in their  application with the Final PUD Plan.   7. The stub of the public road serving lots 6&7 should be removed and converted to private  access of some form for these lots.  8. Overhead power adjacent to and within development must be buried as well as all utilities  serving the site; joint trench is preferred to maximize efficient use of right‐of‐way.  9. Sanitary sewer main in Pennsylvania Avenue must be lined for I&I compliance and any  existing sanitary sewer stubs to the site must be abandoned.  10. Final PUD Plans must identify and show all existing and proposed steep slope and bluff  areas within the shoreland area and establish a minimum setback from such areas to the  proposed homes, or otherwise provide an alternative plan to mitigate impacts.   11. Areas of the PUD within 300’ of Bassett Creek must provide a minimum 50% open space.    15    12. Dedicate conservation easements over shoreland setback areas, steeper slopes, and  higher quality natural and ecological areas within and adjacent to the development site.  13. Applicant shall submit HOA documents and all other private easements, covenants,  dedications and restrictions for the development prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan.  14. Applicant shall provide plans or other materials to demonstrate the purpose of Outlot B  within the PUD beyond unused open space, such as reforestation, utility service, or public  use, prior to submittal of the Final PUD Plan    Attachments  Plan Sets (survey, site plan, landscaping, etc.) (9 pages)  Concept Floor Plans (4 pages)  Applicant Narrative (5 pages)  Greenpath Program Information (8)  Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2021 (12 pages)  OREGON AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVE NPLYMOUTH AVE 1202.88 N00°15'37"WS89°00'09"E 1311.09 ZONE AE N00°1 6 ' 3 7 " W ZONE AE ZONE AE S89°00'09"E622.53 LEGEND OREGON AVE NPENNSYLVANIA AVE NPLYMOUTH AVE 1202.88 N00°15'37"WS89°00'09"E 1311.09 ZONE AE N00° 1 6 ' 3 7 " W 33.01 ZONE AE ZONE AE S89°00'09"E622.53 S20°27'05"W43.68 S76°47'57"W 113.56 S27°54'00"W 320.20S0°08'23"E36.78 S10°46'26"W79.86S37°50'25"W71.89 S62°50'15"W63.69 13 21-013 07/22/2021 GVCC VILLAS RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION GOLDEN VALLEY, MN N CAMPIONENGINEERING SERVICES, INC CLYLO EQJLQHHULQJ LDQG PODQQLQJ 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT N OREGON AVE NPENNSYLVANIA AVE NPLYMOUTH AVE 1202.88 N00°15'37"WS89°00'09"E 1311.09 ZONE AE N00°1 6 ' 3 7 " W 33.01 ZONE AE ZONE AE S89°00'09"E 622.53 S20°27'05"W43.68 S76°47'57"W 113.56 S27°54'00"W 320.20S0°08'23"E36.78 S10°46'26"W79.86S37°50'25"W71.89 S62°50'15"W63.69 13 21-013 07/22/2021 GVCC VILLAS RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION GOLDEN VALLEY, MN N CAMPIONENGINEERING SERVICES, INC CLYLO EQJLQHHULQJ LDQG PODQQLQJ 7 GRADING PLAN N SEE SHEET 13 FOR GRADING NOTES OREGON AVE NPENNSYLVANIA AVE NPLYMOUTH AVE 1202.88 N00°15'37"WS89°00'09"E 1311.09 ZONE AE N00° 1 6 ' 3 7 " W ZONE AE ZONE AE S89°00'09"E 622.53 S20°27'05"W43.68 S76°47'57"W 113.56 S27°54'00"W 320.20S0°08'23"E36.78 S10°46'26"W79.86S37°50'25"W71.89 S62°50'15"W63.69 13 21-013 07/22/2021 GVCC VILLAS RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION GOLDEN VALLEY, MN N CAMPIONENGINEERING SERVICES, INC CLYLO EQJLQHHULQJ LDQG PODQQLQJ 9 PRELIMINARY TREE INVENTORYPLAN N OREGON AVE NPENNSYLVANIA AVE NPLYMOUTH AVE 1202.88 N00°15'37"WS89°00'09"E 1311.09 ZONE AE N00°1 6 ' 3 7 " W 33.01 ZONE AE ZONE AE S89°00'09"E 622.53 S20°27'05"W43.68 S76°47'57"W 113.56 S27°54'00"W 320.20S0°08'23"E36.78 S10°46'26"W79.86S37°50'25"W71.89 S62°50'15"W63.69 13 21-013 07/22/2021 GVCC VILLAS RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION GOLDEN VALLEY, MN N CAMPIONENGINEERING SERVICES, INC CLYLO EQJLQHHULQJ LDQG PODQQLQJ 10 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN N PENNSYLVANIA AVE N PLYMOUTH AVEEDGING,TYP.SOD, TYP.SOD, TYP.1 - AS21 - AS21 - AS21 - AS21 - AS22 - PD1 - BS1 - QB2 - PSG2 - QB2 - PSG1 - QB1 - BS3 - PD1 - PD1 - SI21 - AG21 - AG21 - HV1 - HV1 - HV1 - SI2EDGING,TYP.3 - QB3 - PD3 - EK3 - EK3 - AA1 - AA1 - AAEDGING,TYP.SOD, TYP.SOD, TYP.1 - AS21 - AS21 - AS21 - AS21 - AS22 - PD1 - BS1 - QB2 - PSG2 - QB2 - PSG1 - QB1 - BS3 - PD1 - PD1 - SI21 - AG21 - AG21 - HV1 - HV1 - HV1 - SI2EDGING,TYP.3 - QB3 - PD3 - EK3 - EK3 - AA1 - AA1 - AATREESQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTAA5ArmstroQg ReG Maple / Acer ruErum 'ArmstroQg'---AS25SieQQa GleQ Maple / Acer [ IreemaQii CSieQQaC TM4" Cal. B&BBS2SKiloK SplasK BircK / Betula Qigra CSKiloK SplasKC4" Cal. B&BPSG4PriQcetoQ SeQtr\ GiQgko / GiQkgo EiloEa CPriQcetoQ SeQtr\C4" Cal. B&BEK11Espresso KeQtuck\ CoIIeetree / G\mQoclaGus Gioica CEspressoC2.5" Cal. B&BQB7SZamp WKite Oak / Quercus Eicolor4" Cal. B&BEVERGREEN TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTPD9Black Hills Spruce / Picea glauca CDeQsataC6 B&B─ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTAG22AutumQ BrilliaQce ServiceEerr\ / AmelaQcKier [ graQGiIlora CAutumQ BrilliaQceC20 CLUMPHV3VaQilla StraZEerr\ PaQicle H\GraQgea / H\GraQgea paQiculata 'VaQilla StraZEerr\'20 CONT.SI22Ivor\ Silk JapaQese Tree Lilac / S\riQga reticulata CIvor\ SilkC6C CLUMPSHRUBSQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEHJ10Little Lime H\GraQgea / H\GraQgea paQiculata CJaQeC TM5 CONTST9BircKleaI Spirea / Spiraea EetuliIolia CTorC5 CONTSP11BloomeraQg Purple Lilac / S\riQga [ 'PeQGa' TM5 CONTTT32TecKQ\ GloEe ArEorvitae / TKuMa occiGeQtalis 'TecKQ\ GloEe'5 CONTGRASSESQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZECK21FeatKer ReeG Grass / Calamagrostis [ acutiIlora CKarl FoersterC1 CONTPERENNIALSQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEEE26PoZ WoZ WilGEerr\ CoQeIloZer / EcKiQacea [ 'PAS702917' TM1 CONTHP18ParGoQ Me Da\lil\ / Hemerocallis [ 'ParGoQ Me'1 CONTNL231CatmiQt / Nepeta racemosa CLittle TitcKC1 CONTGROUND COVERS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZE144,742 sI Blue Grass BaseG / SoGCommercial graGe, locall\ groZQ, "Big Roll" preIerreGSoGPLANT SCHEDULETREESQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTAA5ArmstroQg ReG Maple / Acer ruErum 'ArmstroQg'---AS25SieQQa GleQ Maple / Acer [ IreemaQii CSieQQaC TM4" Cal. B&BBS2SKiloK SplasK BircK / Betula Qigra CSKiloK SplasKC4" Cal. B&BPSG4PriQcetoQ SeQtr\ GiQgko / GiQkgo EiloEa CPriQcetoQ SeQtr\C4" Cal. B&BEK11Espresso KeQtuck\ CoIIeetree / G\mQoclaGus Gioica CEspressoC2.5" Cal. B&BQB7SZamp WKite Oak / Quercus Eicolor4" Cal. B&BEVERGREEN TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTPD9Black Hills Spruce / Picea glauca CDeQsataC6 B&B─ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTAG22AutumQ BrilliaQce ServiceEerr\ / AmelaQcKier [ graQGiIlora CAutumQ BrilliaQceC20 CLUMPHV3VaQilla StraZEerr\ PaQicle H\GraQgea / H\GraQgea paQiculata 'VaQilla StraZEerr\'20 CONT.SI22Ivor\ Silk JapaQese Tree Lilac / S\riQga reticulata CIvor\ SilkC6C CLUMPSHRUBSQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEHJ10Little Lime H\GraQgea / H\GraQgea paQiculata CJaQeC TM5 CONTST9BircKleaI Spirea / Spiraea EetuliIolia CTorC5 CONTSP11BloomeraQg Purple Lilac / S\riQga [ 'PeQGa' TM5 CONTTT32TecKQ\ GloEe ArEorvitae / TKuMa occiGeQtalis 'TecKQ\ GloEe'5 CONTGRASSESQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZECK21FeatKer ReeG Grass / Calamagrostis [ acutiIlora CKarl FoersterC1 CONTPERENNIALSQTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEEE26PoZ WoZ WilGEerr\ CoQeIloZer / EcKiQacea [ 'PAS702917' TM1 CONTHP18ParGoQ Me Da\lil\ / Hemerocallis [ 'ParGoQ Me'1 CONTNL231CatmiQt / Nepeta racemosa CLittle TitcKC1 CONTGROUND COVERS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZE144,742 sI Blue Grass BaseG / SoGCommercial graGe, locall\ groZQ, "Big Roll" preIerreGSoGPLANT SCHEDULEREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS PENNSYLVANIA AVE N. & PLYMOUTH AVE N., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 7500 W 78TH ST., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:21191. .. .. .. .. .. .07/23/2021 CITY SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:JSXX. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cP R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/22/21LANDSCAPE NOTES:01" = 30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ORREPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.2.WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTER INSTALLATION AND/ORTOP DRESSING OPERATIONS) OF SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH.3.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTINGBED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.4.IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING.OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.5.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OFHARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAININGPLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.6.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THEQUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.7.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OFTHE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWINGSEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.8.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYER TOPSOIL AND SOD AS SPECIFIEDUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.9.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORSAND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.10.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.11.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.12.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'SACTIVITIES.13.REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.14.PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE ANDCAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BECAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB.15.CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIORTO INSTALLATION.CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:1.MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY (R-1), PER SECTION 111-8:1.1.(3) TREES PER LOT, (1) OF WHICH TREE MUST BE IN THE FRONT YARD;1.2.ANY COMBINATION OF (5) SHRUBS & PERENNIALS IN EACH LOT.2.MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS:2.1.3 TREES PER LOT REQ'D X 7 LOTS = MIN. 21 TREES REQUIRED2.2.5 SHRUBS / PERENNIALS PER LOT REQ'D X 7 = MIN. 35 SHRUBS / PERENNIALS REQUIRED2.3.REPLACEMENT TREES CAN COUNT TOWARDS MINIMUM REQUIRED TREES.2.3.1.CALCULATIONS:132 REPLACEMENT TREES REQ'D - 21 MIN. LANDSCAPE TREES REQ'D - 13 PRESERVED SIGNIFICANT TREES =98 REPLACEMENT TREES REQ'D. REFER TO TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL CALCS.SHRUB & PERENNIAL MATERIAL NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY.SEE SHEETS L1.1 - L1.2. 1 - TT1 - TT3 - HP3 - CK3 - NL23 - EE3 - ST3 - TT1 - TT1 - TT3 - HP3 - CK3 - NL23 - EE3 - ST3 - TT1 - TT1 - TT3 - HP7 - NL23 - CK4 - EE4 - SP3 - TT1 - TT1 - TT3 - HP7 - NL23 - CK4 - EE4 - SP3 - TT3 - CK7 - NL24 - EE3 - TT4 - SP1 - TT1 - TT3 - EE3 - CK7 - NL24 - EE3 - TT4 - SP1 - TT1 - TT3 - EE1 - TT1 - TT3 - EE3 - CK3 - HP3 - NL23 - SP3 - ST1 - TT1 - TT3 - EE3 - CK3 - HP3 - NL23 - SP3 - STREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.1LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS PENNSYLVANIA AVE N. & PLYMOUTH AVE N., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 7500 W 78TH ST., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:21191. .. .. .. .. .. .07/23/2021 CITY SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:JSXX. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cP R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/22/2101" = 10'-0"10'-0"5'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRLOT 1 - LANDSCAPING1" = 10'LOT 2 - LANDSCAPING1" = 10'LOT 3 - LANDSCAPING1" = 10'123LOT 4 - LANDSCAPING1" = 10'4 1 - TT3 - HP1 - TT1 - TT1 - TT3 - HP5 - HJ3 - TT3 - EE3 - NL23 - CK3 - CK3 - NL23 - TT3 - EE5 - HJ1 - TT3 - HP1 - TT1 - TT1 - TT3 - HP5 - HJ3 - TT3 - EE3 - NL23 - CK3 - CK3 - NL23 - TT3 - EE5 - HJ1 - TT3 - HP1 - TT3 - CK3 - NL23 - TT3 - EE5 - HJ1 - TT3 - HP1 - TT3 - CK3 - NL23 - TT3 - EE5 - HJ1 - TT1 - TT3 - EE3 - CK5 - NL23 - HP3 - TT3 - ST1 - TT1 - TT3 - EE3 - CK5 - NL23 - HP3 - TT3 - STREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.2LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS PENNSYLVANIA AVE N. & PLYMOUTH AVE N., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 7500 W 78TH ST., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:21191. .. .. .. .. .. .07/23/2021 CITY SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:JSXX. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cP R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/22/2101" = 10'-0"10'-0"5'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR5LOT 5 - LANDSCAPING1" = 10'6LOT 6 - LANDSCAPING1" = 10'7LOT 7 - LANDSCAPING1" = 10' REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.3LANDSCAPE PLANNOTES & DETAILS. .. .. .. .. .. .Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS PENNSYLVANIA AVE N. & PLYMOUTH AVE N., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 7500 W 78TH ST., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION. .. .. .. .. .. .PROJECT NUMBER:21191. .. .. .. .. .. .07/23/2021 CITY SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:JSXX. .. .. .. .. .. .. .COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cP R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/22/211.ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE FULLY IRRIGATED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT IRRIGATION SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2.SEE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IRRIGATION WATER, METER, AND POWERCONNECTIONS.3.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES PRIOR TO ANYEXCAVATION/INSTALLATION. ANY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES SHALL BE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CORRECTING DAMAGES SHALL BE BORNEENTIRELY BY THE CONTRACTOR.4.SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE PER LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY STANDARDS AND SHALL BE PERNATIONAL AND LOCAL CODES. EXACT LOCATION OF SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUIVALENT AT THE JOB SITE.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY FOR THE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SERVICE ANDMETERING FACILITIES.6.IRRIGATION WATER LINE CONNECTION SIZE IS 1-12" AT BUILDING. VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL PLANS.COVAGE.7.ALL MAIN LINES SHALL BE 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE.8.ALL LATERAL LINES SHALL BE 12" BELLOW FINISHED GRADE.9.ALL EXPOSED PVC RISERS, IF ANY, SHALL BE GRAY IN COLOR.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT AT 2'-0" BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE TOP OF PAVEMENT.EXTEND SLEEVES TO 2'-0" BEYOND PAVEMENT.11.CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK THE LOCATION OF ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT WITH THE SLEEVING MATERIAL "ELLED" TO2'-0" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AND CAPPED.12.FABRICATE ALL PIPE TO MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS WITH CLEAN AND SQUARE CUT JOINTS. USE QUALITY GRADEPRIMER AND SOLVENT CEMENT FORMULATED FOR INTENDED TYPE OF CONNECTION.13.BACKFILL ALL TRENCHES WITH SOIL FREE OF SHARP OBJECTS AND DEBRIS.14.ALL VALVE BOXES AND COVERS SHALL BE BLACK IN COLOR.15.GROUP VALVE BOXES TOGETHER FOR EASE WHEN SERVICE IS REQUIRED. LOCATE IN PLANT BED AREAS WHENEVERPOSSIBLE.16.IRRIGATION CONTROLLER LOCATION SHALL BE VERIFIED ON-SITE WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.17.CONTROL WIRES: 14 GAUGE DIRECT BURIAL, SOLID COPPER IRRIGATION WIRE. RUN UNDER MAIN LINE. USEMOISTURE-PROOF SPLICES AND SPLICE ONLY AT VALVES OR PULL BOXES. RUN SEPARATE HOT AND COMMON WIRE TOEACH VALVE AND ONE (1) SPARE WIRE AND GROUND TO FURTHEST VALVE FROM CONTROLLER. LABEL OR COLOR CODEALL WIRES.18.AVOID OVER SPRAY ON BUILDINGS, PAVEMENT, WALLS AND ROADWAYS BY INDIVIDUALLY ADJUSTING RADIUS OR ARCON SPRINKLER HEADS AND FLOW CONTROL ON AUTOMATIC VALVE.19.ADJUST PRESSURE REGULATING VALVES FOR OPTIMUM PRESSURE ON SITE.20.USE SCREENS ON ALL HEADS.21.A SET OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON-SITE AT ALL TIMES IN AN UPDATED CONDITION.22.ALL PIPE 3" AND OVER SHALL HAVE THRUST BLOCKING AT EACH TURN.23.ALL AUTOMATIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVES WILL HAVE 3" MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4" WASHED GRAVEL UNDERNEATHVALVE AND VALVE BOX. GRAVEL SHALL EXTENT 3" BEYOND PERIMETER OF VALVE BOX.24.THERE SHALL BE 3" MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOM OF VALVE BOX COVER AND TOP OF VALVE STRUCTURE.IRRIGATION NOTES:FACE OF BUILDING, WALL, OR STRUCTUREMIN. 3" LAYER OF ROCK MULCH AS SPECIFIED. PROVIDE SAMPLE TOLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATIONFINISHED GRADECOMPACTED SUBGRADEWATER PERMEABLE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AS SPECIFIED18" - VERIFY W/ PLANAGGREGATE MAINTANENCE STRIPN T SSTAKED LANDSCAPE EDGER AS SPECIFIED, SEE MANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS AND SPECS. FOR INSTALLATION AND PLACEMENTSLOPE - MIN. 2%, MAX. 5:1VERIFY W/ GRADING PLAN1Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPERENNIAL BED PLANTINGN T SPLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVESURROUNDING GRADEROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TOENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACTSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDEXISTING GRADEROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPENOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEPMULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT STEMBACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATIONDO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.SIZE VARIESSEE LANDSCAPE PLANMODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON LOCATION OF PLANTMATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS OR OVERALL PLANTPLACEMENT4DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS SHRUB PLANTINGN T SPRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAINNORMAL SHAPE FOR SPECIES)PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVESURROUNDING GRADEROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TOENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACTSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDEXISTING GRADEROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPENOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEPMULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT TRUNKBACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATIONDO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.THREE TIMES WIDTHOF ROOTBALLRULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ONLOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDSOR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT3THREE TIMES WIDTHOF ROOTBALLDECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTINGN T SPRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAINNORMAL TREE SHAPE)THREE 2"X4"X8' WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROWNWITH TWO STRANDS OF WIRE TWISTED TOGETHER.STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120° TO ONE ANOTHER.WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH NYLONSTRAPPING WITH GROMMETS. ALTERNATE STABILIZINGMETHODS MAY BE PROPOSED BY CONTRACTOR.TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE 1"-2" ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OFPLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ROCK OR ORGANICMULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLANNOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP MULCH MIN. 2" FROMPLANT TRUNKEXISTING GRADECUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL. IF NON-BIODEGRADABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELYSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDBACKFILL AS SPECIFIEDCOMPACT BOTTOM OF PIT, TYP.RULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ONLOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDSOR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT2 VILLA HOME BROOKS Main Level 1966 sq ft Lower Level 1591 sq ft TOTAL 3557 sq ft 2016© Ron Clark Construction & Design. All rights reserved. Do not copy or allow these prints to be copied. Floor plans shown are for illustrative purposes only and subject to change. Please see our sales consultant for details. 2/18/16 VILLA HOME JONDAHL Main Level 2042 sq ft Lower Level 1648 sq ft TOTAL 3690 sq ft 2016© Ron Clark Construction & Design. All rights reserved. Do not copy or allow these prints to be copied. Floor plans shown are for illustrative purposes only and subject to change. Please see our sales consultant for details. 2/18/16 ALEXANDER Main Level 1940 sq ft Lower Level 1735 sq ft TOTAL 3675 sq ft 2016© Ron Clark Construction & Design. All rights reserved. Do not copy or allow these prints to be copied. Floor plans shown are for illustrative purposes only and subject to change. Please see our sales consultant for details. 2/18/16 VILLA HOME VILLA HOME 2018© Ron Clark Construction & Design. All rights reserved. Do not copy or allow these prints to be copied. Floor plans shown are for illustrative purposes only and subject to change. Please see our sales consultant for details. 4/2018 RAMSEY 2 Main Level 1668 sq ft Lower Level 1244 sq ft TOTAL 2912 sq ft OPT Sun Room 155 sq ft OPT Flex Room 161 sq ft 7500 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 (952) 947-3000 fax (952) 947-3030 Page 1 of 5 Friday, July 23, 2021 Jason Zimmerman City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE: Golden Valley Country Club Villas (GVCC Villas) Preliminary PUD Application Subject: Project Narrative Introduction GVCC Villas is a proposed development of an existing vacant parcel located in the NW corner of the Golden Valley Country Club’s Golf Course to be developed by Ron Clark Construction and Design. The overall goal is to balance the existing natural environments while adding new housing to create a small neighborhood that’s adds to the city and revitalizes an underutilized property. The first step in this process was to determine if the city agrees that changing the land use and zoning for this parcel to low density residential is a good use for the property vs it continuing to sit vacant. This approval was received on May 4th, 2021. The next step in the process is our submittal for a preliminary PUD which was discussed at the prior meetings as the preferred direction for the site. The ability to do a PUD on the site vs. standard zoning allows for the site to incorporate the best planning to maintain some open space buffers at the intersection, preservation of more trees and reforestation with higher quality tress in areas that will continue to benefit the area for years to come. The PUD flexibility requested for the site creates a much better overall neighborhood then developing the same number of lots under the standard zoning rules. This new project will create new housing on vacant underutilized land, improve water quality going into Bassett Creek, create value for the existing area and increase the city’s tax base. • Existing Zoning and the Future Land Use designations were: Institutional, Sub-district I-4 which includes Golf Courses, Parks and Natural Areas prior to our requested changes noted below were approved by the City Council on 5/4/21. • The City Council on 5/4/21 approved the zoning change to R-1 single family zoning and Land Use change to Low Density Residential, both of which allow up to 5 housing units per acre, which will allow us to build seven (7) single family Villa Homes on about 2.25 acres. (Average of ~14,000 sq. ft. per home) 7500 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 (952) 947-3000 fax (952) 947-3030 Page 2 of 5 • Our current application for a Preliminary PUD is based on the previous applications and approvals and is requesting some flexibility as allowed within the parameters of the PUD process including: o Public Street width, setbacks & ROW o Building setbacks o Lot sizes Planning The proposed development plan is for seven (7) single family Villa homes located on a new public road within the site. Site access will be from both Pennsylvania and Plymouth Avenues as determined by discussions with staff and our project team as the best solution. This solution allows the homes to be setback from the main streets this also allows room for the creation of a permanent landscape buffer near the intersection with many new trees and other vegetation. In additional we are treating all of our storm water in underground system which is a very efficient system and maintain more green space on the surface. This small alcove of homes will add to the current neighborhood and create value for the existing neighbors by delivering new high-quality residential homes with views of the golf course to the area. Planned Unit Development The single family PUD requires a maximum of 38% site coverage our plan shows 33.2% site coverage. Public Amenities provided within our proposed development include the below listed items: 1) Reduce building waste a. Engineered floor & roof trusses b. Wall panels to reduce on-site waste c. Locally sourced materials (windows, siding, OSB, components) 2) Recycle program a. Atomic Waste Recycling Program 3) Renewable Energy a. Solar rough-in to allow installation after construction is completed 4) Exterior Envelope a. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification b. Roofing 40yr shingles c. All foundation insulation is exterior “WatchDog Tuff-n-Dri Foundation Exterior Insulation System 7500 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 (952) 947-3000 fax (952) 947-3030 Page 3 of 5 5) Windows & Doors a. Energy Star Exterior Doors & Windows b. Certified installation during construction 6) Insulation a. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification b. Inspected & tested during construction 7) Interior a. Wd Floor domestic materials b. Carpet – No VOC c. Tile-locally sourced recommended 8) Paint/Stain a. No VOC 9) Lighting a. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification 10) HVAC a. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification b. Inspected and tested during construction 11) Cabinets & Tops a. Locally sourced or manufactured 12) Appliances a. Energy Star Rated b. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification 13) Plumbing Fixtures a. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification 14) Indoor Air Quality a. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification b. Tested & certified during construction 15) Landscaping a. Native vegetation b. Pollinator Plants c. Engineered Irrigation plan d. Project designed & certified by Landscape Architect 16) Other Resources a. MN GreenPath Program-Advanced Certification b. 3 site visits during construction/inspected/documented c. Blower door tested & certified 7500 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 (952) 947-3000 fax (952) 947-3030 Page 4 of 5 Parks, Trails and Landscaping All homes within the development will have direct access to existing city sidewalks and trails and enjoy beautiful views of the existing Golden Valley Country Club & Golf Course and the Minneapolis skyline. The site and new home landscaping is designed to blend with the current golf course amenities and trees. Though replacement tree plantings can never initially make up for the necessary tree removal, many of the existing tress that will be removed are near the end of their life span, native species will be selected and placed in an effort toward reforestation for a future healthy habitat. Plant selections with wetland preservation and enhancement will create an Urban Ecology theme throughout the development. We have worked with various city’s in the past to create neighborhoods near sensitive ecological areas with great results for both the residents and environment. We recently worked closing with the city of Minnetonka to create Legacy Oaks, a unique neighborhood surrounded by wetlands and natural areas, the final result is beautiful homes and substantial improvement of wetland functions and water quality along with improvement of the surrounding natural areas. Housing and Architecture The single family Villa homes will be planned and designed to fit into the existing neighborhood but also will add a new style of housing not currently in the neighborhood. We are planning a mix of home designs that range between 2700 and 3700 square feet. The home designs will offer two car-plus garages, sunrooms, porches, and decks with a variety internal floorplans and exterior styles. The overall architecture is still in the development stage and will be completed with involvement from the course as to the architectural guidelines but if you look at the neighborhoods we are currently working on, you will get a feel of the quality the homes, the varied designs and neighborhood feel we deliver. We also focus on energy efficient building practices as part of the Minnesota Green Path Builder program. Associations A Home Owners Association will be planned for the neighborhood. The association will maintain each homes snow removal and lawn care along with maintaining any common area landscaping. 7500 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 (952) 947-3000 fax (952) 947-3030 Page 5 of 5 Included in our development application are the below listed documents: (all documents submitted electronically on 7/23/21) and are organized per the following outline. 00) This project description and narrative 01) Preliminary PUD and Plat Application 02) Survey & Legal Description 03) Landscaping & Tree Plan along with Removal plan 04) Exterior Lighting Information 05) Preliminary Plat 06) Civil engineered plans for grading & utilities 07) Architectural Site Plan 08) Building Plans & Elevations 09) PUD Scoring requirements and MN GreenPath Information Fees: A check for the city fees for the above applications and the original signed application was delivered to the city prior to the submittal Conclusion Ron Clark Construction is honored to have the opportunity to develop this new single-family Villa neighborhood in Golden Valley in conjunction with the Golden Valley Country Club. We were selected by the course from a group of application because the course felt we could deliver a new neighborhood that both the City and the Golf Course would be proud of. We believe our concept both protects and enhances the existing natural amenities while developing an underutilized area of the city by adding high quality housing, new residents and increased tax base. We are proud to present this high-quality Ron Clark Construction development concept for your consideration and look forward to working with the City of Golden Valley through the approval and construction process. Mike Waldo CEO Mike Roebuck President Minnesota’s Green Pathsm is an energy and green building program for the residential construction industry. Launched by the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC) in late 2011, MN Green Path provides builders with a realistic approach to building energy-efficient and sustainable homes. The program offers two green certification levels (advanced and master), plus a base energy tested level which is on the way to becoming an industry standard. One of the reasons for Green Path’s popularity is its exclusive Home Performance Report (HPR). The HPR is at the heart of MN Green Path, providing home buyers with test results from third- party, independent RESNET energy raters in an easy-to- understand and compare format, like a new vehicle’s MPG window sticker. ENERGYTESTED HERS Index52 This home is 48% more ener g y efficient than the HERS reference home built to c o d e 1. Home Performance R e p o r t MN GREEN PATH | W W W . M N G R E E N P A T H . O R G Home Address: XXXX Home Street Minnetrista MN 55331 Square Feet: 4630Bedrooms: 5Baths: 5 Builder: Building Companywww.buildername.com AVG OLDER HOME NET ZERO HOME 130+ 0 52 1The RESNET Home Energy Rating S y s t e m ( H E R S ) s c o r e r a t e s h o m e s a g a i n s t a n i n d e x o f t h e c o d e r e f e r e n c e h o m e o f 1 0 0 . T h e l o w e r t h e score, the more energy efficient the home. Older homes often sc o r e 1 3 0 o r h i g h e r . I n M i n n e s o t a t o d a y , n e w h o m e s b u i l t t o c o d e g e n e r a l l y t e s t a b o u t 8 0 . 2The Air Changes Per Hour at 50 Pascals ( A C H 5 0 ) i s t h e i n d e x u s e d i n b l o w e r d o o r t e s t i n g t o i n d i c a t e h o w a i r t i g h t a h o m e i s . A s with HERS, the lower the score the more energy efficient the home . Minnesota’s Green Path is a progra m o f t h e B u i l d e r s A s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e T w i n C i t i e s . Serial #014250 WORST10 1.0 ACH50 BEST These results reflect Air Changes per Hour of measured air flow2. 0 1.0AVGMN NEW HOME CODE REFERENCE HOME Which one are you? •It’s the environment, stupid. Building a new home for you will mean recycled materials, super-energy construction, built-in recycling bins, maybe even a gray water reservoir and definitely solar a panels. •It’s all about the money. When you build you’ll be looking at the bottom line, today and into the future. Yes, there will be energy-saving construction to keep your future bills low, and you’ll calculate the return on investment for every single choice you make. In all reality, most of us fall somewhere in between those two extremes. And that’s OK. The beauty of Minnesota’s Green Path is that it is for everyone, from passionate environmentalist to bean-counter extraordinaire. Green Path boasts “radical transparency,” so no matter what route you choose through the program, you’ll receive an easily-understood Home Performance Report (HPR) with details about the efforts you’ve made. And, we’re confident this will make your home even more valuable in years to come. Meeting More Home Buyer’s Needs It’s very clear from study after study that today’s home buyers want some level of improved energy efficiency, but still don’t want to pay too much for green features. Buyers today are also information starved. They want to know everything they can about a product before they buy it. MN’s Green Path succeeds in bringing these two realities together beautifully with a green-build program anchored on choice and on providing the missing data to help you make home buying decisions that are right for you. When you buy a new home, you’ll spend a lot of time balancing your choices. You can compare prices between neighborhoods, home styles, size and number of rooms. Do you want a big neighborhood or a more intimate setting? Do you want the value of a two-story or the convenience of a rambler? Will you exchange extra square footage for more luxurious finishings? But understanding the mechanical side of a new home isn’t quite so simple. Just how do you measure a home’s energy performance factors, its indoor environmental quality or its durability? How a home performs is a combination of many factors, from construction materials and techniques, to equipment choices and R-values (the unit thermal resistance, generally in walls and ceilings). And that’s where Green Path’s Home Performance Report (HPR) and energy testing comes in. It removes the mystery of how well all of those variables work together, with a test score that can be compared with others. Just like the MPG window sticker on a new car, the HPR helps you make better choices about your own family’s needs and wants. You and your builder choose the level of energy efficiency and green features appropriate to your needs and budget, and Minnesota’s Green Path ensures complete transparency — documenting the home’s HERS score and green features for all to see on the Green Path HPR. Minnesota’s Green Path, The Right Path for Minnesota Home Buyers…All of You. The Three Levels of Minnesota’s Green Path Energy Tested: The first level of MN’s Green Path is Energy Tested. These homes have been tested and rated by a third-party, independent RESNET Rater. Each receives an attractive Green Path HPR with the HERS and ACH50 (air exchange index) test results. For those buyers who want more efficiency and environmental sensitivity in the construction of their new home, MN’s Green Path offers two green certification options. These levels require a higher level of energy and green choices. Certification requirements include: Advanced Certified: A new home with a HERS score of no more than 55 (the average Minnesota code-built home currently scores 80). The home must also earn 5 total points in Energy Efficiency, 5 points in Indoor Environmental Quality, 5 points in one of Water Conservation, Resource Management or Site/Development disciplines, and 5 points from any elective checklist. Master Certified: A new home with a HERS score of no more than 50 (the average Minnesota code-built home currently scores 80). The home must also earn 10 total points in each of the five areas of green construction: Energy Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, Water Conservation, Resource Management and Site/ Development. Advanced and Certified points are offered for use of green construction materials, techniques and products per the Green Path checklist, which you can find online at www.MNGreenPath.org. Your Path to Certification:HERS Index52 AVG OLDER HOME NET ZERO HOME 130+0 52 AVGMN NEW HOME 60 OR LESSADVANCEDCERTIFED REQ. 50 OR LESSMASTER CERTIFED REQ. CODE REFERENCE HOME Since not just new home buyers are interested in energy and green, MN’s Green Path has brought its unique combination of choice and documentation to remodeling. Like the new-home program, MN’s Green Path for Remodelers begins with energy testing, in this case an energy audit to understand the home’s current energy efficiency. Then your remodeler will work with you to determine the best remodeling solutions to meet your energy-saving and green goals. Once your remodeling is complete, MN’s Green Path will provide you with documentation about the energy and green features that have been incorporated into your home in the form of a Home Performance Report (HPR). Each HPR clearly denotes the home’s energy ratings (if the project included testing) and any green features included in the remodeling — placing your home on the Green Path, now and for future renovations. As we’ve said all along, MN’s Green Path doesn’t always have to be radically green, but it is always radically transparent. Make sure your next home includes a MN’s Green Path Home Performance Report so you can compare all of your choices. More information is available at mngreenpath.org. And remember to ask your contractor to add MN Green Path when you build or remodel. Minnesota’s Green Path for Remodeling, Too!2015 SPONSORS Trailblazer Sponsors: Pioneer Sponsors: Visionary Sponsor: Minnesota’s Green Path is a program of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities implemented in partnership with Residential Science Resources, LLC. THE EVOLUTION OF INSULATION ™ CERTIFIED PEND ADVANCED CERTIFIED 2.2ACH50 2.2 HERS Index53 This home is 47% more energy efficient than the HERS reference home built to code.1 AVG OLDER HOME NET ZERO HOME 130+0 53 AVGMN NEW HOME CODE REFERENCE HOME Home Address: 15450 Leona Lane, Minnetonka MN 55345 Square Feet: 3,536 | Bedrooms: 3 | Baths: 2.5 Builder: Ron Clark Construction ronclark.com 1The RESNET Home Energy Rating System (HERS) score rates homes against an index of the code reference home of 100. The lower the score, the more energy efficient the home. Older homes often score 130 or higher. In Minnesota today, new homes built to code generally test about 80. 2The Air Changes Per Hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50) is the index used in blower door testing to indicate how airtight a home is. As with HERS, the lower the score the more energy efficient the home. Minnesota’s Green Path is a program of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities.Houserater #47442 Your home’s place on the Green Path: MN’s Green Path ENERGY TESTED TypicalExistingHome MN’s Green Path ADVANCED CERTIFIED MN’s Green Path MASTER CERTIFIED You Are Here New Home Your HomeYour home’s place on the Green Path: These results reflect Air Changes per Hour of measured air flow. 2 WORST BEST 10 0 Home Performance Report MN GREEN PATH | WWW.MNGREENPATH.ORG Energy Efficiency n HERS Index 53 n Blower door test result of ≤0.3 cfm per sq ft n Systems approach to home design used n Bottom plates of exterior walls sealed to subfloor n Foundation and mudsill sealed n Cantilevered floors sealed above supporting walls n Air conditioning unit properly installed n No wood burning fireplace present inside the thermal envelope n ENERGY STAR certified clothes washer, dishwasher Indoor Environmental Quality n Patio slabs, walks, and driveway sloped minimum 1/8” per foot away from house n Garage floors sloped minimum 1/8” per foot toward main vehicle entry doorway, or integrated floor drains installed n 4” min perforated foundation drain with 3/4” of gravel and filter fabric installed at OUTSIDE perimeter of footings n 4” min perforated foundation drain with 3/4” of gravel and filter fabric installed at INSIDE perimeter of footings n Water-based waterproofing system used on below-grade walls n Recessed light fixtures sealed to drywall with gasket, caulk, or foam n Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) or Energy Recovery Ventilator (ERV) installed n Exterior envelope sealed using gasket or acoustical sealant at all foundation, wall-to-wall, or floor-to-wall intersections n Basement has foundation drainage system inside and outside with sump pump, or tied to a drainage outlet n Carpet, adhesives, and cushion qualify for CRI Green Label Plus or Green Label Testing program n Local exhaust ventilation to outdoors installed for baths, kitchen, clothes dryers, central vacuum system, etc. n Supply boots sealed to floor or wall Land n Home built on infill site n Home built in an area where housing density averages more than 4 single-family homes per acre n No heritage trees removed on the home site n Home within 5 miles of park-and-ride location n Home within 1/2 mile of bike route n Excavated soil kept on-site n Efforts taken to restore ecosystem damaged in construction n Each tree removed from construction site replaced with two (or more) trees n Home faces south to maximize ambient light Resource Management n Decking or patio material made from recycled content n Roofing material with minimum 25% recycled content used n Construction waste sorted on or off site and recycled as appropriate n Recycling center installed with homeowner use with minimum of two sorting bins n Reusable footings and foundation forms used n Flexible ductwork installed without excess coils or loops n Three of the following items recycled or reclaimed: wall coverings, floor coverings, countertop materials, millwork, or cabinets n Three of the following items 50% locally sourced (within 500 miles): cabinets, interior doors and trim, millwork, windows, flooring, shingles/roofing, PEX tubing, countertops n Materials installed which protect waterproof membrane, and function as hydrostatic pressure release Water Management n Landscape plan promotes water absorption n Irrigation system design zones turf and bedding areas separately n Drip irrigation system installed n Installed drip irrigation system has moisture/rain sensor n Soil tested for nutrient level and structure n As a result of test, soil amended to achieve optimal nutrient level and structure n At least 3” of mulch applied to all planting beds n Showers each have no more than one shower head n Erosion control plan designed by licensed engineer n Irrigation system designed by EPA water-sense certified professional Insulation FeaturesInsulation Features Worst InsulationGrade III/NR Rim Grade: I Ceiling Flat R = 49.0 (Grade III/NR) Vaulted Ceiling R = 49.0 Above Grade Walls R = 21.0 (Grade II) Foundation Walls R = 15.0 (Grade III) Framed Floors R = 40.0 (Grade III/NR) Slab R = 10.0 Edge, 10.0 Under (Grade III/NR) Duct Uninsulated Window U = 0.290, SHGC = 0.330 Blower Door Test ResultsBlower Door Test Results Tested CFM50 1,280 CFM50/ft2 surface area 0.17 CFM50/ft2 floor area 0.37 ACH50 2.17 Ventilation Flow Test ResultsVentilation Flow Test Results Target Flow (CFM)Unknown Actual Flow (CFM)0 Rated Flow (CFM)0.0 Duct Leakage to Outside 15 Cost of Services:Cost of Services: Energy Rebate:Energy Rebate: Rater Rebate:Rater Rebate: $1,150.00 $125.00 $0.00 Your Cost:Your Cost:$1,025.00$1,025.00 **** Building CodeBuilding Code File NumberFile Number Site Walk DateSite Walk Date MN Code #47442 2015-09-03 NONO 5353 51.54%51.54% Che cklis tsChe cklis ts Comple te dComple te d No Che cklis ts S igne dChe cklis ts S igne d No Me e ts Te s tingMe e ts Te s ting S tandardsS tandards Yes ENERGY STAR RequirementsENERGY STAR Requirements HERS IndexHERS Index RESNET Ratings provide a relative energy use index called the HERS Index, which represents the home's energy usage as a percentage of the energy usage of the "American Standard Building." Beats 2006 IECC standard byBeats 2006 IECC standard by 0 TBC Failures need correcting 3 Issues could use improvement 4 Exceptional building practices identified HomeHome 15450 Leona Ln Minnetonka, MN 55345 BuilderBuilder Ron Clark Construction & Design 7500 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 ModelModel Custom Type: Single-family detached Size: 3475 ft2 HeatHeat CoolingCooling Hot WaterHot Water VentilationVentilation ThermostatThermostat EfficiencyEfficiency 96.1 (AFUE)14.0 (SEER)0.67 Brand / MakeBrand / Make Daikin Daikin AO Smith Venmar Honeywell ModelModel DM96VC0803BNAA DX13SN0361AB GPVX 75L 200 Venmar Honeywell SizeSize 80.0 BTU 36.0 BTU 75 Gal Final Testing and Completion Report (SV3) ** Home has not be e n ve rifie d comple te . ** Home has not be e n ve rifie d comple te . Re bate s pe nding ve rification.Re bate s pe nding ve rification. S ite Walk Date : 20 15-0 9 -0 3S ite Walk Date : 20 15-0 9 -0 3 Ho us e r a te r Ho me ID #47442Ho us e r a te r Ho me ID #47442 R e s i d e nti a l S c i e nc e R e s o ur c e s , LLC | S i te Wa l k D a te : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3R e s i d e nti a l S c i e nc e R e s o ur c e s , LLC | S i te Wa l k D a te : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3 p a g e p a g e 11 o f o f 88 Energy Efficiency • HERS index of 70 or better • Blower door test result of ≤0.3 cfm50 per sq. ft. of building enclosure or lower. • ENERGY STAR Certified (or better) dishwasher, clothes washer, refrigerator, if installed. • Install energy efficient lighting such as CFL, or LED hard-wired fixtures in 50% of whole house. • Above grade exterior wall insulation must be R-21 or better and installed to Grade II of the Resnet Standards (Refer to 2009 IECC). • Foundation insulation minimum R-10 rigid foam exterior insulation or equivalent. • Air seal around outside of window and door units with low expansion foam insulation (maintain drainage void at base of window). • All ductwork installed in exterior wall cavities must have a minimum of sealed R-10 rigid foam installed along the exterior wall of the cavity. • Must install programmable thermostat. Indoor Environmental Quality • Mechanical ventilation of home for 48 hours prior to occupancy. • All gas combustion equipment must be sealed or direct vented. • Isolate attached garages: install air barrier, seal common walls, ceiling and penetrations prior to insulating. Provide gasketed door to living spaces. • May not use building cavities as a part of the duct work for supplies and returns (i.e. cannot use panning of joist or wall cavities for air supply or return system). • Foundation waterproofed – from footing to sill plate. Water Conservation • Install all faucets or add aerators with low flow. (1.5 gl/mn) Resource Management • On two of the major elements of the building – walls, roof or floor – or in 50% of project – use FSC, SFI, or CSA certified wood for wood and wood- based materials and products. • On site disposal with vendor who recycles. Other • BATC Membership or other Local Home Builder Association Membership. • Attend program orientation and on-going annual updates. • 3 elective points in energy. • 2 elective points in indoor environmental quality Base Certification Requirements BETA V2 ©MN Green Path www.mngreenpath.org [1/12]        REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by  the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,  2020, all Planning Commission meetings held during the emergency were conducted  electronically. 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 Blum.    Roll Call  Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Lauren  Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum   Staff present:    Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner   Council Liaison present:  Gillian Rosenquist    Commissioner Johnson asked when the final items from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be  discussed. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, responded that it depends on applications and in  about 2‐3 months the last pieces will come together.     2. Approval of Agenda  Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi, to approve the  agenda of April 12, 2021. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.    3. Approval of Minutes  Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from March 22, 2021.  MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve  minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.    4. Public Hearing – Continued Consideration of a Major Amendment to Hidden Lakes PUD 74  Applicant: Regency Hospital  Address: 1300 Hidden Lakes Parkway, Golden Valley, MN    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that this hearing is a follow‐up from a  previous meeting on January 25th, due to new material. This amendment to PUD 74 would allow for  an expansion of the hospital building and that would lead to necessary utility and landscape changes.   April 12, 2021 – 7 pm    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       2  Zimmerman displayed a map and reviewed the zoning district and location within the City of Golden  Valley.   The previous meeting ended with a list of outstanding concerns and since then, there were  negotiations between the hospital and the HOA Board, revisions were made to the plans:   6’ high solid wall along east edge of parking lot   Additional landscaping   Reduction of seven proposed parking spaces (37 vs. 44)    The updated proposal includes a new private agreement between the HOA and the Hospital Board  that addresses eight areas of concern:   Hidden Lakes Parkway – maintenance and cost issues   Employee smoking and littering   Traffic speeds, stop signs, noise, deliveries, etc.   New parking lot landscaping and wall   Lighting   Stormwater management   Construction activities   Future expansion  This private agreement was approved by the HOA Board and hospital, then shared with residents on  April 7th. This agreement is intended to manage issued outside of the PUD permit.    Zimmerman recapped the details of the PUD amendment regarding the size of the addition, utility  details, the existing entrance, dining/day room on the second floor, and the exterior material details.  To illustrate these details, a map was displayed as well as a 3D rendition of the proposal. The updated  plan recap is:   Parking lot reconfiguration triggered:  o Expand to the south, add 37 parking stalls  o Would remain under the usual required parking ratio  o Knoll and existing trees would be removed   New landscaping/screening added along east edge of parking lot – both low and high   Lighting would respond to the City’s “dark skies” requirements   Stormwater treated/managed through an underground system  Using the trip generation data for nursing homes, traffic engineers estimated that the addition would  generate an estimated 42% increase in trips per day (578 to 822).    Zimmerman reviewed the details surrounding community engagement, public comments, and the  schedule for this item appearing before Planning Commission and the scheduled date it will appear  before City Council.    Staff evaluation and preliminary findings were extensive and resulted in a recommendation for  approval subject to 18 conditions.    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       3  Recommendation  Approval of Amendment #8 to Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, subject to the following conditions:  1. The plans for the Regency Hospital addition, submitted January 13, 2021, and subsequently  updated on March 29, shall become a part of this approval. Required revisions include:  a. Showing and labeling the access gate and trail along the south property line.  b. Reducing lighting levels under second‐floor addition and under the port cochère.  c. Working with staff to locate designated smoking area for employees and visitors.  d. Indicating the location of trash receptacles in and around the parking lot.  2. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for a minimum of 11 bicycles shall be provided. The  applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities.  3. The applicant shall provide a snow storage/removal plan that does not reduce the number  of parking stalls nor impact the public trail for staff review and approval prior to City  approval of the PUD Permit.  4. A public walkway easement shall be dedicated over the public trail in the southeast corner  of the site. This trail shall be temporarily rerouted and maintained for public use during  construction.  5. A permanent conservation easement shall be dedicated along the shoreland of Twin Lake.  6. The applicant shall repair and maintain the fence along the south property line to  discourage cut through foot traffic to Twin Lake.  7. The applicant shall utilize motion sensors on parking lot lighting, and utilize motions sensors  and motorized shades on timers within the day room, in order to reduce unnecessary  illumination and reduce impacts to adjacent properties.  8. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping adjacent to the public trail on the east  side of the property in accordance with the approved plans on file with the City.  Maintenance shall include all reasonable care, trimming, repairs, and replacement needed  to ensure the landscaping improvements are kept in good condition.  9. With the exception of oxygen deliveries, large truck deliveries and pick‐ups shall be limited  to the hours of 7 am to 8 pm daily.  10. The hospital shall be limited to a total of 92 beds. The building footprint shall not be  expanded without the required review and approval by the City.  11. The applicant shall work with staff to address questions around the outdoor chemical  storage areas near the southwest corner of the building.  12. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management  Commission.  13. A stormwater maintenance and chloride management agreement with the City shall be  executed.  14. The applicant shall complete all inspections related to the City’s Inflow and Infiltration  requirements and work with staff to resolve any repairs or improvements necessary.  15. An updated agreement between the hospital and association, addressing reimbursement  procedures and commitments for construction‐related damage on Hidden Lakes Parkway  and the reallocation of roadway expenses, shall be provided to the City for review prior to  approval of the PUD Permit.  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       4  16. The applicant shall share with the City its plan for management of trash in and around the  parking lot as well as for employee communication around these efforts.  17. The applicant shall address the three conditions outlined by the Minneapolis Park and  Recreation Board in its letter dated December 29, 2020.  18. A development agreement shall be drafted prior to City approval of the PUD Permit and  shall include details on:  a. Permitted days and hours of construction activity.  b. The location and nature of construction parking, access, delivery, staging,  equipment and materials storage, and employee parking.  c. A neighborhood “Hot Line” for issue resolution.    Commissioner Pockl asked how the City insures the private agreements are enforced. Zimmerman  responded that the City stays out of the private agreement between the hospital and the HOA. Any  condition or agreement in the PUD permit has the enforcement of the PUD process. Violations will  be addressed, require corrective actions, and could result in legal action.   With all the conditions and the private agreement, Commissioner Johnson asked if the Planning  Commission has now set itself up as a mediator and straying from its expertise in reviewing parking  etc. He followed up by asking who has precedence, the HOA or the homeowners in the HOA.  Zimmerman responded that staff has not inserted itself in the private agreement but together they  came to the City and asked how it could be enforceable. The HOA will discuss what they intend to do  to enforce their agreement. Johnson followed up that he hopes the Commission stays within its  realm of ability.      Chair Blum invited the Applicant to address the Commission.     Dave Garmin, Applicant ‐ Regency Hospital, stated the private agreement with the HOA was a good  compromise that benefits them and the HOA.     Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:40pm.    Jeff Eisenberg, President of HOA, stated staff provided a good presentation and elaborated on a  background between the HOA and the applicant. Discussion between the HOA and Commissioners  included resident input on and responses to the agreement.    Fredda Pink  1405 Waterford Drive  My husband has written quite a bit but my concern is the hospital is planning on doing a piling. I  don’t know how many people are aware of the noise associated with a piling. My son is a real estate  developer and he told us a few days ago that there’s a more expensive style that eliminates the  constant pounding noise and potential damage to our homes. I was wondering if it would be possible  to look into that, it would relieve a lot of tension. There’s also no protection for the people who face  the north end of the hospital, we have a full view of the north end of the building and parking lot.  That hasn’t been addressed either.   City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       5    Patrick Lewis  1750 Waterford Court  I wanted to clarify a few things from the presentation, there isn’t unanimous HOA Board support for  the agreement and there is a difference between the homeowners and the HOA. I’ll reiterate that  this project will be problematic no matter what, it’s a commercial development in a residential area.  This expansion involves all the mitigations discussed to mask the issue that it’s too big of a build for  this area. The hospital said they don’t have plans to expand but there’s nothing preventing them  from proposing expansions in later years. The main thing I want to state again is that there isn’t an  agreement between homeowners, the HOA Board doesn’t represent the homeowners, and there  isn’t even agreement among the Board.     Ron Schiferl  4220 Woodland Trail  There’s been significant improvement since the last Planning Commission Meeting. The landscaping  plan pictures look great but the actual plan proposed is to limit the trees to 6foot‐that’s exactly as  high as the wall. There needs to be more variation in the plan. I hope the city works with the hospital  to create more variety so it looks like landscaping. Can we add something to ensure the hospital  maintains its landscaping as they have a history of not doing that. The last Planning Commission  meeting there was mention that the hospital reached out to homeowners, they had not before or  after that meeting. All communication has come from the HOA. My understanding is that this plan is  for a two‐story building to allow for expansion on the first floor, if the hospital isn’t planning on any  expansions in the future, why do they still need a two‐story building?    Chair opened Commissioner discussion.     The Chair asked staff to address the pilings question. Zimmerman said his understanding is that  they’re not planning on using pilings but rather do spread footings. He followed up that he’s not sure  how that impacts surrounding properties. A development agreement can address those issues.  Displaying images from the presentation, staff addressed the concerns regarding shielding from the  north end of the building and staff pointed out that most of the homes are on a hill from the hospital  which may create more difficulties. Zimmerman added a condition to the PUD that landscaping must  be maintained and trees will be 6 feet in height to start, not top out at 6 feet.    Chair closed the public hearing at 8:11pm.    Commissioners Johnson asked if the parking spaces exceed minimum amount, why is the City  agreeing to this when they value green space. Staff responded that the minimum amount from the  hospital is their standard amount and they’d prefer more to accommodate staff, training, visitors  etc. Johnson expressed concern on this topic and feels the number of parking spaces is arbitrary.  Commissioner Pockl asked if they can ask the applicant why removal of the knoll is needed.   City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       6  Alan Catchpool, Applicant Engineer with Kimley‐Horn, stated that public utilities goes through the  site and to the SE corner and the entrance to the parking lot is through the knoll. Those items require  the knoll removal.   Chair Blum noted the dedication of a conservation easement and staff responded that most of twin  lakes has a conservation easement along it and the City would like to continue protecting that area.  This helps prevent erosion and development and the area is not currently developed. Blum asked if  it’s harder to develop on a slope as steep as the one along the hospital to the lake. Zimmerman  responded that it is and was part of the hospital’s original plan but the decided against it. Blum noted  to Commissioners that the area unlikely to be developed and may have less value to be dedicated as  a conservation easement.   Pockl asked the HOA representatives to explain how the HOA Board came to support the private  agreement as a caller noted they hadn’t. Eisenberg, HOA, stated that the Board was updated after  every conversation with the hospital and the Board voted unanimously to support the private  agreement.   Johnson referred to page 10 that the applicant wants to use motion sensors in the parking lot, and  asked if that means the lot will be completely dark. Zimmerman stated the City Code has a minimum  level for how the lot is illuminated.     Blum discussed the building height and setbacks in the proposal. Commissioners had a discussion  revolving around these items, lighting, and the easement. The discussion moved on to property  maintenance, the applicant meeting requirements, and negotiations between applicant, city and  HOA.   Commissioner Segelbaum commended the negotiations and supports staff recommendation.   Commissioner Brookins stated he supports the proposal and staff recommendation. Blum asked for  more mitigating changes. Commissioner Sadeghi asked if the HOA Board mentioned the items  concerning to Blum as they will feel the direct impacts. Eisenberg, HOA, responded that the private  agreement, gives them more rights than they had before. The hospital needs repairs and the  proposal will help that. Pockl said she’s not concerned about the setbacks or height, negotiations  have been productive and the hospital improvements will have a positive impact. Pockl stated  support for staff recommendations. Commissioner Johnson said he tried to consider all parties  involved and doesn’t think an HOA Board has more say than the average resident. He added the  process may need to change in the forward to ensure consideration of everyone’s rights.     MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to formally  adopt staff findings and follow staff recommendation for approval subject to the 18 conditions as  listed in the memo.       Chair Blum stated he felt the final approval could be stricter.   2d: Blum suggested the language change to “install and maintain”  16: Blum suggested instead of the plan being shared, that there be more certain language.     Staff took a roll call vote on the motion and it passed unanimously.       City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       7  5. Public Hearing – Amendments to Future Land Use and Zoning Maps   Applicant: Golden Valley Country Club  Address: Northwest corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road    Prior to presentation, Commissioner Sadaghei recused himself as there was a conflict of interest.     Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized that the applicant is petitioning the City for both a Zoning Map  Amendment and a change to the City’s Future Land Use Plan for a portion of the Golden Valley Country  Club Property. Property is currently zoned I‐4 for Institutional use and the requests would result in the  property being zoned “R‐1, Single Family Residential. Reguiding and Rezoning the property is the first  step to allowing the site to be redeveloped for single‐family housing.    Country Club approached the City in late 2019 about the opportunity to sell a portion of their property  to a private developer. 7001 Golden Valley Road is in total 148.76 acres, the area being considered for  rezoning is 2.25 acres.    Ron Clark Construction (developer) is proposing to use the site for the development of seven single  family homes. The applicant would like to use a new private road to provide access to the homes,  limiting the number of new curb cuts off the public streets, and allowing for additional greenspace  buffers. A PUD would be necessary and the City would require some public benefits and amenities in  order to allow for flexibilities such as the private road. None of these actions can occur without change  to the site’s zoning and guided land use    Campbell discussed the existing conditions of the area, topography, creek location, and showed maps  to illustrate these items.   The approvals process prior to any redevelopment is large, if the rezoning and reguiding are approved,  the applicant must then either apply for a major subdivision or a PUD. A potential approval schedule  was displayed assuming each step was approved without tabling or additional review.     Staff analyzed surrounding uses, traffic generation, buildable lots, and the comprehensive plan.    Staff Findings   The site is currently in an area with other R‐1 zoned properties, and would not be out of  character with the surrounding neighborhood.   More work is needed to determine the safest street access to the new residential  development, but Engineering staff is not concerned about the traffic generated by the  inclusion of new single‐family residential in the area.    The use of this site for a residential purpose fits with a number of the goals and objectives of  the Comprehensive Plan.   In its Housing Chapter, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for new housing in the  City to maintain pace with demand, but notes the lack of available land area for a relatively  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       8  built‐out city. Rezoning this land and allowing for development would be a path to providing  some new housing in the city.    While the focus of rezoning should be on all potential future users under the R‐1 zoning  designation, the narrative provided by Ron Clark Construction demonstrates both a high  quality end product and an understanding that they are entering an existing neighborhood  and an area with critical natural resources to protect.    Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning  designation for the proposed parcel as described in the land survey from Institutional Sub‐district I‐4,  to Single Family Residential R‐1.    Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing the  guided land use for the proposed parcel as described in the land survey from Parks & Natural Areas to  Low Density Residential.    The discussion started with process explanations and, PUD process, community engagement, and  other input from watershed organizations and Met. Council. Chair Blum commented that it seems  PUDs tend to maximize number of lots which causes concern for him on the size of lots proposed in  this area. Campbell explained that a PUD can allow for more design flexibility, helps the City maintain  wooded areas and greenspace. The City also changed the PUD requirements and new standards are in  place to identify public amenities to be included in a PUD which allows the developer design flexibility.  Campbell added he doesn’t feel a PUD only serves the developer.   Commissioner Pockl asked if consideration for mature vegetation could be added to PUD  requirements. Campbell responded that tree and landscape requirements would be required  regardless of how the lots are established. The conversation moved on to discuss requirements for  vegetation prior to these other approvals, hoping the property owner doesn’t clear cut prior to the  landscaping considerations being in place.    Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that the group is picking at the comp plan and how  affordable and variety of housing is being factored into this plan. Campbell stated that the purchase  agreement for the property may preclude affordable housing policies. However, the mixed‐income  property policy requires new developments over a certain scale, make a percentage of the units  available at a lower income value. In this case, the 7 units, do not meet the requirement for the policy.  There are items in other chapters of the comp plan that can be addressed later in the proposal, at this  point there are not enough details to say if these goals will be met.  Blum stated that the Comp. Plan can be used to argue against the proposal as well and cited the open  green space item.     Pockl asked if the topography of the site limits development. Campbell responded that Engineering  staff didn’t have an initial reaction when reviewing the proposal but details surrounding those specifics  will be reviewed and discussed when this process is further along. Watershed and state agencies will  be included in those conversations.   City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       9  Chair Blum invited the applicant to speak.     Ron Clark Construction, Applicant, has been working with the club for 6‐8 months and they feel  strongly that re‐zoning that area to be R‐1 makes sense. The Club has been focused on making sure  this benefits the City and the golf course and has had a holistic approach to this process. The design  isn’t cookie cutter and the creation of a private road helps appeal from the course and helps the buffer  to the road side.     Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 10:04pm.     Eric Boe  1023 Quebec Ave N  I have lived here since 1993 and I’d like to add that all the homes in the area surrounding it are single‐ family detached homes. I think that’s an important detail. It’s good to hear in the plan they’d like to  use a private road. One thing not mentioned, the four‐way intersection at Pennsylvania and Plymouth  is offset. That creates limited visibility and any additional traffic and parked cars will add to safety  concerns.  I don’t want to see parking on this intersection or short driveways like over by Menards, I’d  like to see a sidewalk added to the plan for added safety.     Brent Behn  1300 Kelly Drive  My concerns are regarding the term “low‐density” as it seems 7 large homes will be on a 2‐acre site  and that appears to be fairly dense. This density level doesn’t fit in the community surrounding as the  surrounding lots are bigger. I’m concerned with the rezoning continuing and more land being used for  development in the golf course.    Eric Brandt  7400 Plymouth Ave N    We have a lot of parks in Golden Valley but I can’t think of another, separate 2.2‐acre wooded lot. I  think we’re giving up a unique lot. Living here and looking at the wild‐life, they will all be impacted by  clearing the trees. The private road sounds appealing but I can’t think of a single private road in Golden  Valley that compares. Also, 7 homes on 2.2 acres is dense for this neighborhood and the proposed lot  development would be an outlier.     (Name inaudible)  1205 Pennsylvania Ave   I’m also speaking on behalf of my neighbors. I’ve been privy to the plans and I want to indicate that  I’m speaking a little out of context as I’m aware of the plans shared with golf course members. The  private road is set to be on Pennsylvania Ave, the intersection is offset and congested. Our neighbors  moved from an area near construction because it was impacting their quality of life and found this  neighborhood mature and enjoyed the forest area across the street. The lot with trees is a gem as the  previous caller mentioned. The cost associated with the development, the homes will not be on the  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       10 affordable side and while it may up our property values, it doesn’t seem that it would further Golden  Valley’s objective to increase middle‐income housing.     Chris Lowman  7440 Plymouth Ave   We bought this house due to its location, we look right at the wooded lot. We are afraid the community  that surrounds us will be taken away with this project. Additional traffic on this already busy corner  makes us worried about the decrease in safety. We’re concerned about the lot sizes not matching the  aesthetic of the neighborhood as well. The target market doesn’t seem to align with the market that  wants to live in this neighborhood. My hope is that whatever decision is made, is the best one for the  neighborhood and the city, not the developer.     Commissioner Orloff stated that he feels more information on the ecological impacts will be needed.  Campbell responded that any development will require removal of many trees and details around that  will be navigated if this becomes a PUD.   Commissioner Segelbaum thanked the callers and noted that many items will be addressed as the  project moves forward. However, it seems that City Engineering staff do not think the addition of 7  homes will create unmanageable traffic. At this early stage, is parking or the offset intersection  considered. Campbell responded that traffic volume is a principal concern, the other concerns will be  addressed later as discussions around the private roadway occur.     Brian Gieseke  1337 Kelly Drive  I’d like to echo what I’ve already heard about the intersection, setbacks, the watershed, and traffic.  The road is already narrow and there isn’t a stop sign for a few blocks so vehicle speeds increase.  Parking will be an issue, especially over the winter and I’m concerned for further lot splitting if this  area is zoned residential. The wooded area is special for our neighborhood and I am concerned for it  to disappear.     Blum urged everyone to utilize flexibility at this early stage and consider what’s most appropriate for  the City and neighborhood here while being fair to the applicant. He referenced the 2040  Comprehensive Plan’s guide for open and green spaces. Blum stated he doesn’t support the applicant’s  request. Pockl echoed those comments and said an appeal of Golden Valley are the green spaces and  natural spaces. Pockl stated she doesn’t feel comfortable changing the zoning and land use at this  point.     Lynne Jensen  1039 Pennsylvania   I’ve lived here 30 years and see a lot of wildlife coming from that area, eagles and owls nest in the trees  proposed to be removed. The road to Winnetka on Plymouth is blocked and a lot of traffic is pushed  to Pennsylvania. Traffic is already a problem on this street and particularly during rush hour. Additional  traffic will also dissuade the active cycling community.     City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       11 Commissioner Johnson echoed Blum and Pockl’s and doesn’t see the benefit of taking the vibrant  wooden greenspace and turning it in to 7 homes. Johnson is not in favor of changing the designation.   Segelbaum followed up by saying the group is looking at seeing if the area is appropriate to convert  from unused golf course space to housing. Caller concerns can be mitigated later in the negotiation  process, it seems like there may already be a traffic issue. The PUD process will present an opportunity  to help the existing areas.  Johnson responded that the group has a responsibility to maintain  greenspace. This plan drastically alters the landscape and he feels there will be more harm than good  as a result. Blum responded that if they start the process now, momentum may take over and the  project won’t turn out in the way the Commission intends on. Flexibility may occur now but things may  not always turn out the way we want with that flexibility. Greenspace is valuable and so are lot sizes,  once they’re given up, they’re gone. The group needs to do what it can to preserve those things.     Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 10:45.     Commissioner Brookins stated support for staff recommendation, feeling it’s appropriate for the area.     MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to deny the zoning  designation amendment for the Northwest corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road.   Staff took a roll call vote:    Aye: Johnson, Pockl, Blum  Nay: Brookins, Segelbaum  Motion carries as stated.     MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to deny the land‐use  amendment for the future land‐use map for the Northwest corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road.   Staff took a roll call vote:    Aye: Johnson, Pockl, Blum  Nay: Brookins, Segelbaum  Motion carries as stated.     Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 10:53 pm    6. Council Liaison Report   Council Member Rosenquist provided a brief update on recent Council actions and upcoming  events. The City and the Minneapolis Park Board are close to finalizing a Memorandum of  Understanding regarding public safety/enforcement in Theodore Wirth Park. Three Rivers Park  district is involved regarding trails and bike infrastructure. A late April “call in” session will be  provided for the Police Task Force to receive input from the public. A bill to study Highway 55 Bus  Rapid Transit continues to move through the legislature.    7. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings  None.  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  April 12, 2021 – 7 pm       12   8. Other Business  None.    9. Adjournment  MOTION by Commissioner Pockl to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, and approved  unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:02 pm.                                                                                                            ________________________________                                                                                                  Adam Brookins, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant            1      Date:  August 23, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Valerie Quarles, Community Development Intern  Subject:  Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Consolidation of 8810 10th  Ave N       Property address: 8810 10th Ave N  Applicant: Academy of Whole Learning  Property owners: Academy of Whole Learning  Zoning District: Institutional (I‐1) Zoning  District   Lot size: 226,542 square feet (5.2 acres)   Current use: Vacant (school use planned for  8810 10th Ave N)  Future land use: Institutional  Adjacent uses: Office, light industrial, railroad       2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)  2    Summary  Academy of Whole Learning is proposing to consolidate the properties located at 8810 10th Avenue  North, 1021 Boone Avenue North, and 915 Boone Avenue North into a single parcel. A school use  planned at this location.     Existing Conditions  The subject properties are zoned I‐1 Institutional and allow for places of worship, schools (with the  exception of higher education), Class I essential services, and seasonal farm produce sales. The lots  total 226,542 square feet in area. They front on 10th Avenue N to the south and are adjacent to Boone  Avenue to the east and the Union Pacific Railroad to the north. The school is currently served by  sufficient sewer and water service, and the potential expansion of the school to the south would be  sufficiently served by existing utilities.     Staff Review  I‐1 Lot Requirements  For uses in the I‐1 Institutional zoning district, the principal structure must be set back 35 feet from  any front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. All front yards must be maintained as landscaped  green areas and shall contain no off‐street parking. Required side yards must be no less than 50 feet  in width and required rear yards shall be no less than 50 feet in depth. One half of the required side  and rear yards shall be landscaped, planted, and maintained as a buffer zone.     The proposed lot consolidation would only give additional space for the site to meet the above  requirements. The proposed lot would be 353 feet wide at the southern border, 630 feet wide at the  eastern border, 349 feet wide at the northern border, and 662 feet wide at the western border, total  226,542 feet in area, and enable the school to expand its current footprint without violating the  existing setbacks relative to the existing interior lot lines.     Minor Consolidation Eligibility  In the City’s subdivision code there are 3 conditions for a request to be considered for a minor  consolidation action:   1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded  registered land survey (RLS)  2. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to  the creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels  3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in new  roads or utilities to serve the lots.    The subject properties meet all three conditions to be eligible for a minor consolidation action. They  were platted as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1, Golden Valley Industrial Park, Hennepin County,  Minnesota in 1967. The consolidation will create less then four new parcels (1). Since no new public  roads or utilities are required, the site will require no new public investment.       3    Additional Department Review  The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has determined that a fire hydrant should be  placed on the northeast portion of the site. The existing hydrants in the area are all on the opposite  side of the street, and should the building require the fire department, using those hydrants would  force fire trucks to block the free flow of traffic with their hoses. It would also potentially cut off  further access to the building via the north driveway. While there are multiple ways the applicant  could satisfy the requirement for a hydrant, it is a condition of approval that a hydrant be placed in  the northeast portion of the site.     The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and determined that the drainage  easements should be adjusted in the Final Plat based on final site grading. This is a condition of  approval.     Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Consolidation   According to Section 109‐121 of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations  governing approval of minor consolidations with staff comments related to this request:    1. Minor consolidations shall be denied if the proposed lot does not meet the requirements of the  appropriate zoning district, or if vehicular access is not provided from an abutting improved  street. The new lot meets the requirements of the I‐1 Institutional Zoning District.     2. A minor consolidation may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lot is not  buildable. The City Engineer finds that the combined lot is buildable.    3. A minor consolidation may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if  it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems  by the addition of the new lots.  The lot consolidation would not place an undue strain on City  utility systems.    4. Approval of the minor consolidation may require the granting of certain easements to the City.  The Engineering Department has found that drainage easements will need to be adjusted in the  Final Plat based on the final grading of the site.     5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor  consolidation, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. The streets adjacent to  the site are owned by the City, so this regulation is not applicable.      6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain  easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of  the Final Plat.    7. The minor consolidation may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee  is not required for this subdivision since the lots were previously platted.    4    8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor consolidation.  Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All  qualifications have been met.    Recommended Action  Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor consolidation subject to the following conditions:    1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat.   2. The applicant agrees to provide a fire hydrant in the northeast portion of the site, in accordance  with the Fire Department’s needs.   3. The applicant agrees to dedicate all drainage and utility easements deemed necessary by City  Engineering staff, and in accordance with final site grading plans. Such dedications shall be in  place prior to approval of the Final Plat.    Attachments  Civil Site Plan (1 page)  Tree Inventory (1 page)    DN DN DN BOONE AVENUE NORTHCHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWE T WETWETWET WET 5.0' 4.0' 4.0' 18.5' TYP. 9.0' TYP. dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com 25.0' MIN BUFFER 17 17 17 22 11 12 3 22 24.0' 4.0' 14 141414 15 14 14 3 20.0' 18.0' 18.5' TYP. 9.0' TYP. 24.0' 24.0' 24.0' 12.5' 45.0' 45.0' 10.5' 120.0' 80.0'8.0' 5.0' 8.0' 8.0'DATE: 6.17.2021CHECKED BY: E. BeazleyDRAWN BY: A. AndersonPROJECT NO.: 20XXXREVISION:0PRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1021 Boone Ave NGolden Valley, MNxxxxx6.8.2021C2-1SITE PLANRIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AREAS (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS dwgmodels.com PROPOSED TREES (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) Feet1" = 30' 6030015 1 PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION (SEE ARCH) 2 PROPOSED OUTDOOR PLAY AREA NOTES: 1. SEE THE NOTES SHEET (C4-1) FOR FULL SITE PLAN NOTES, WHICH ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS PLAN SHEET. 2. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 3. SEE THE REMOVALS PLAN FOR PROTECTION OF EXISTING FEATURES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES TO REMAIN. 4. THE REMOVAL, PRUNING, AND/OR PLANTING OF TREES IN THE PUBLIC BOULEVARD REQUIRES AN APPROVED PERMIT FROM THE CITY FORESTER. ANY WORK MUST BE COMPLETED BY A LICENSED TREE CONTRACTOR. 5. INSPECTION CONTACT: THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE RIGHT OF WAY INSPECTOR ONE WEEK PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK TO DISCUSS TRAFFIC CONTROL, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND COORDINATION OF ALL WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. NOTE: IF A ONE WEEK NOTICE IS NOT PROVIDED TO THE CITY, ANY RESULTING DELAYS SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 6. AS PART OF THE ROW PERMITTING PROCESS, TWO WEEKS BEFORE ANY WORK BEGINS THAT IMPACTS THE ROW IN ANY WAY THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE TO THE ROW INSPECTOR THE NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER OR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT. IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PROVIDED THERE MAY BE A DELAY IN OBTAINING PERMITS FOR THE WORK IN THE ROW. SAID DELAYS WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER 7. A FOUR-SIDED TRENCH BOX IS REQUIRED ON ALL EXCAVATIONS DEEPER THAN 5 FEET WHERE UNDERGROUND WORK OR INSPECTION IS TO BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS. FOR ALL WET TAPS TO BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS, A MINIMUM TRENCH BOX SIZE OF 8 FEET HIGH X 8 FEET WIDE X 10 FEET LONG IS REQUIRED. LADDERS ARE REQUIRED AND MUST EXTEND 3 FEET ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE TRENCH. SIDEWALKS, PAVEMENTS, DUCTS AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE UNDERMINED UNLESS A SUPPORT SYSTEM OR ANOTHER METHOD OF PROTECTION IS PROVIDED. TRENCHES IN EXCESS OF 20 FEET IN DEPTH MUST BE SIGNED OFF BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE KEPT A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE TRENCH. 8. CONSTRUCTION IN THE RIGHT OF WAY: ALL WORK ON CURBS, DRIVEWAYS, AND SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE DONE TO CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY A CONTRACTOR LICENSED TO WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDER A PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALK SECTION. SIDEWALK GRADES MUST BE CARRIED ACROSS DRIVEWAYS. 9. RIGHT OF WAY RESTORATION: RESTORATION OF ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS ARE PERFORMED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT TO THE CITY FOR THE COST OF THE RESTORATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE TO SET UP A WORK ORDER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY REMOVALS IN THE STREET. PROCEDURES AND UNIT COSTS ARE FOUND IN STREET MAINTENANCE'S "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -ALL RESTORATION" AND ARE AVAILABLE AT THE PERMIT OFFICE. 1 2 3 EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN 3 3 4 PROPOSED PLAYGROUND AREA (SEE ARCH) 4 APPROX. DISTURBANCE LIMITS PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITIONS 5 PROPOSED 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6 PROPOSED ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP 7 OUTLINE OF PROPOSED STORMTECH RETENTION/FILTRATION SYSTEM 8 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA WITH 8" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB 9 B612 CURB AND GUTTER 10 PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION AREA 11 BLOCK RETAINING WALL AT ASTRO TURF EDGE. 12 PROPOSED NOSE DOWN CURB/ END OF CURB AND GUTTER 5 5 5 PROPOSED ASTRO TURF PLAY AREA 9 9 9 10 6 12 7 5 11 11 11 12 13 BUS DROP OFF AND LOADING ZONE 14 PASSENGER VEHICLE DROP OFF AND LOADING ZONE 15 APPROXIMATE WETLAND DELINEATION (NWI) 16 MONUMENT (BY OTHERS) 13 14 16 EXISTING GREEN SPACE PROTECTION AREA 17 ADJUST CATCH BASIN MANHOLE CASTING (SEE UTILITY PLAN) 17 15 15 8 18 PROPOSED FENCE (SEE ARCH) 18 18 18 9 19 NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD PLATE GV-STRT-060 19 18 20 2' FLAT RIBBON CURB 21 PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP PER CITY STANDARDS 21 22 RE-STRIPE PARKING LOT 22 20 SEAL COAT EXISTING PAVEMENT219 23 PROPOSED STMH 1 23 9 10TH AVENUE NORTHBOONE AVENUE NORTH CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD508485865857596053545556837980818291909293949596979998100101103102104105106109108107262725241237891011121314333435383652787772717073746968676665646362617576494828232956181921201730462216314744454342414051393215878889437XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTREE PRESERVATION LEGENDEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO REMAIN4242EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAINEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO REMOVE4242EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMOVEXXEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION4242EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONPROJECT NO.:ISSUE RECORD ISSUE  DATE DESCRIPTION SPERIDES REINERS ARCHITECTS, INC. 6442 CITY WEST PARKWAY SUITE 300 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, 55344 PH: 952-996-9662 WWW.SRA-MN.COM COPYRIGHT 2021 SPERIDES REINERS ARCHITECTS, INC CDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:I HERBY CERTI)Y THAT THIS P/AN, SPECI)ICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER9ISION AND THAT I AM A DU/Y REGISTERED /ANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE /AWS O) THE STATE O) MINNESOTA. TERRY MINARIK, AS/A 42242 ;;;;2021 REGISTRATION NO.DATE SR a ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORSPRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION0162021 DESIGN DE9E/OPMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTCONFLUENCEwww.thinkconfluence.com530 N THIRD STREET, SUITE 120MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401PH: (612) 333-3702TREE PRESER9ATIONP/AN/101TREE PRESERVATION PLAN01L101 30'60'15'0'SCALE:1"=30'     Date:  August 23, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Valerie Quarles, Community Development Intern  Subject:  Accessory Dwelling Unit Discussion #3    Summary   The last two ADU discussions have been spent gathering background information on ADUs and  answering Commissioners’ questions around the basis for allowing them. This memo lays out all  of the pieces that go into a typical ADU ordinance, why they’re important, and how other cities in  the metro have handled each issue.   Body  An ADU ordinance should regulate each of the following issues:   Location   Allowed zoning district(s)   Minimum lot size   Location within lot    Lot coverage  Size and Appearance   Allowed structure type(s)    Maximum and minimum size    Height and massing    Design guidelines and exterior entrances   Parking requirements  Administration   Owner‐occupancy requirement   2     Utility hookups    Permitting/city review process   An ADU ordinance does not need to regulate:    Building standards (already addressed by the building code)   Rental licensing process (no different than traditional licensing, handled by the Fire  Department)   Short‐term rentals (not currently in the interest of the City Council to address)   Maximum number of occupants (already addressed by the zoning code)  While addressing these points, the potential effects of the ordinance should be weighed against  the following criteria:     Affordability of construction   Number of lots with ADU potential   Impact on existing neighborhoods   Ease of administrative process  These criteria have been established according to the goals that the Planning Commission has  both stated and implied over the course of discussion thus far.   The following is an analysis of selected similar regulations around the Twin Cities. All references  to metro cities refer to municipalities with ADU ordinance in place.   Location   Most Twin Cities municipalities allow ADUs in single‐family home and/or two‐family residential  districts, occasionally paired with minimum lot sizes. These lot sizes vary widely based on the  existing conditions within communities. For those that do have a minimum, the smallest is 5,000  square feet/0.11 acres (Saint Paul) and the largest is 40,000 square feet/0.92 acres (Apple Valley).  Other cities allow ADUs on all lots in a given zoning district. All municipalities have regulations on  the location of an ADU within a lot.  Setbacks are the most prevalent location‐within‐lot regulation. Setbacks are intended to  minimize the physical impact of an ADU upon neighbors, but excessive setbacks can make it  difficult for all but the largest lots to construct an ADU. Setbacks also affect different types of  ADUs differently.    An internal ADU, like a basement or attic conversion, will not be affected by  setbacks. There is no change to the existing building envelope.    An attached ADU, like an addition to the principal structure or an addition to a  detached garage, will encounter the setback that applies to the main home.    A detached ADU, or freestanding structure, will be the most affected by setbacks.   While lot coverage maximums can have the same negative effects upon construction feasibility,  very few Twin Cities communities have chosen to regulate the size of an ADU in this way. Most  3    rely upon regulations that relate the size of the ADU to the size of the main home, which will be  covered further in Size and Appearance. For those cities that do limit lot coverage, it varies  between 20% and 35%.   Additionally, most cities regulate that detached ADUs are placed in the rear yard, and some  stipulate that attached ADUs may not substantially alter the character of the front façade of the  principal structure.   Size and Appearance   While some cities have chosen to limit allowed ADU types to internal or attached ADUs, most  allow all three kinds.   Size regulations for ADUs happen in two ways: relating the floor area of the ADU to the finished  floor area of the main home, and flat minimum and maximum square footages. The purpose of  limiting the floor area of an ADU to the finished floor area of the home is to ensure that the new  unit doesn’t visually or practically qualify as a traditional duplex. Maximum sizes as they relate to  the main structure range from 30% of the main building’s floor area (Shoreview) to 75% of the  four‐season living area of the main home (Roseville). Flat maximums range from 650 square feet  (Roseville) to 960 square feet (Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan). Additionally, some cities limit the  number of bedrooms to 1 or 2.    Minimum sizes are typically a flat square footage and in the Twin Cities, range from 300  (Minneapolis, Richfield, Roseville) to 500 (Shoreview) square feet. Not all cities set size  minimums.   The physical character of a neighborhood is greatly influenced by setbacks (as mentioned above)  and regulations that control the height and massing of principal and accessory structures.  Because these rules are so well‐established, many cities in the metro have chosen to continue to  apply them to ADUs. The regulations that control the building envelope continue to apply to  attached ADUs, and regulations on accessory structures continue to apply to detached ADUs.  Internal ADUs are not affected. Some cities have chosen to create separate rear yard setbacks for  detached ADUs, but these can severely affect the feasibility of construction if not applied with  care. Because Golden Valley limits accessory structures to 1 story in height, it may be worth  amending the accessory structure regulations to allow for taller ADUs, especially those which are  located above a garage.   Design guidelines for ADUs in the Twin Cities vary in specificity, which can allow regulators and  neighbors some leeway in influencing what is appropriate for their neighborhoods. Examples  include:    Crystal: The accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed as to be compatible with the  exterior materials of the existing principal building.    Roseville: The appearance or character of the principal building shall not be significantly  altered so that its appearance is no longer that of a one‐family dwelling.  4    o Material: The exterior finish material shall match in type, size, and placement, the  exterior finish material of the principal dwelling unit.   o Roof pitch: The roof pitch shall match the predominant roof pitch of the principal  dwelling unit.   o Details: Trim shall match the trim used on the principal dwelling unit. Projecting  eaves shall match those of the principal dwelling unit.   o Windows: Windows shall match those in the principal dwelling unit in proportion  (relationship of width to height) and orientation (horizontal or vertical).   Saint Louis Park: Accessory buildings shall not exceed 15 feet in height. The maximum  height may be increased to 24 feet where the primary exterior materials of the accessory  building match the primary exterior materials of the principal building and the roof pitch  matches the primary roof pitch of the principal building, and provided the wall height  shall not exceed 9 feet from the floor to the top plate.  Exterior entrances are typically relegated to the side or back yard, and some cities stipulate that  there must be a paved walkway leading to the entrance.   Parking requirements are typically the most contentious regulation and therefore the measure  that varies the most among local cities. For example:    Saint Paul: No additional spaces if principal home meets minimum parking requirement   Minneapolis: 0 spaces for the ADU and 1 space each for any other units    Roseville: 1 additional off‐street space for the ADU   Burnsville: 1 off‐street parking space for the ADU and 2 off‐street spaces for the main  home    Lakeville: 3 garage stalls for the ADU and main home   Shoreview: 3 off‐street spaces in total    Apple Valley: 2 off‐street spaces for the ADU and 2 off‐street spaces for the main home   Eagan: 2 off‐street spaces for the ADU and 2 off‐street spaces for the main home   Minnetonka, White Bear Lake: Determined on a case‐by‐case basis  Because Golden Valley limits street parking in the winter, additional attention will have to be  placed upon the number of off‐street parking spaces required. Currently, 2 spaces per dwelling  are required on a single‐family lot. However, most lots of this type have additional parking  already. Requiring 3‐4 minimum spaces for a property with an ADU would likely not require  additional paving, and already match with how larger families/families with children of driving  age are using their parking spaces.   Administration  It is generally agreed among local cities and among members of the Planning Commission thus far  that an owner‐occupancy requirement for the property is preferred. Some cities stipulate that  the property owner resides in the principal structure, but being able to reside in either unit lends  flexibility to older homeowners.   5    Because an ADU is a separate unit, it requires utility hookups for sewer and water. Whether a  hookup is attached to the main home’s line (which in turn attaches to the street main) or directly  attached to the street main can constitute a significant difference in construction cost. While this  decision will likely lie more with the relevant City staff than with the Planning Commission, it is  noted that most cities in the metro allow ADU utilities to connect to the main home, and that this  generally constitutes a construction cost savings.   The permitting process for an ADU follows all of the same rules that an addition to a home would  be subject to. A home addition is an action that would go through staff review. Some cities have  chosen to set up additional layers of review. For example:    Apple Valley: Conditional Use Permit   Stillwater: Special Use Permit   Eagan: Annual Registration   Saint Paul: Annual affidavit of owner‐occupancy  While key oversight by City staff will happen no matter what, it is important to keep in mind that  both the Planning Commission’s time and the applicant’s time are valuable. A Conditional Use  Permit, for instance, would require more than one public meeting and add multiple months to  the applicant’s timeline while also functioning as a significant barrier for potential applicants.  However, it may be determined that a platform for neighbors to voice concerns must be  available. This could lead to a special permit process that notifies neighbors of plans for  construction, but doesn’t require the full Commission and Council review of a CUP.   Conclusion   All of the potential regulations above should be considered through (at minimum) the initial  criteria:    Affordability of construction   Number of lots with ADU potential   Impact on existing neighborhoods   Ease of administrative process  Finally, to go through the entire process and then make it prohibitive to create an ADU – whether  that’s because of physical limitations, cost, or administrative barriers – defeats the purpose of  creating a well‐crafted ordinance. Staff will continue to guide the conversation in a way that  avoids “poison pills”, or small parts of the ordinance that make it ADU construction impossible for  a disproportionate group of homeowners.   Next Steps  With input provided by Commissioners, staff will summarize for a future meeting the direction  that Golden Valley might head with respect to all of the regulations above. A conversation with  the City Council is scheduled for the November Council Work Session. At that meeting, staff will  6    provide a summary of the Planning Commission discussions to date and look for consensus from  the Council on next steps.  Questions for Discussion  1. What stood out to you?   2. What might be missing from the regulations we’ve talked through today?   3. Where do you see yourself so far in this conversation – do you feel more comfortable with  Minneapolis‐like regulations, Apple Valley‐like regulations, or somewhere in between?  Where do you feel Golden Valley sits on that spectrum?   Resources   Home + Home: Twin Cities ADU Guidebook (Family Housing Fund)  ADU’s: Housing Options for a Growing Region (Family Housing Fund)  The ABC’s of ADUs (AARP)  KnowledgeBase Collection: Accessory Dwelling Units (American Planning Association)   ADU Info by City ‐ Twin Cities (Family Housing Fund)      Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedApple Valley In R-1 zoning districtConditional Use Permit2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main homeYesMust connect to main house40,000 SFCannot exceed 35% 300 SFShall be no larger than 40% of the main home's footprintAttached, Internal 155.382ADU occupancy limited to 3 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer2Bloomington*In R-1 and RS-1 zoning districtsPrimary home must have 4 off-street parking spacesYesMust connect to main house11,000 SF300 SF960 SF or 33% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, Internal § 21.302.03ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer1 permitted and constructedBurnsvilleIn R-1 and R-1A zoning districts1 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main homeYesMust connect to main house. If not on municipal lines, must meet private well and septic standards10,000 SF for attached1 acre for detached300 SF960 SF or 33% of the footprint of the main homeAttached, Detached, Internal 10.7.52ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer; require park dedication and utility fees 0ChaskaIn Planned Unit DevelopmentsYes768 SFDetached, above garage with alley access Ord. #70810CrystalIn R-1 and R-2 zoning districts1 additional for the ADU NoCan be connected to property or utility main 6,000 SF Shall not exceed 50% of the finished floor area of the primary homeAttached, Detached, InternalChapter V, Subsection 515.23, Subdivision 31 permittedEaganIn Estate and R-1 zoning districtsAnnual Registration2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main homeYesMust connect to main houseCannot exceed 20% 300 SF960 SF or 33% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, InternalSection 11.70, subdivision 32ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer1 constructed and 1 legalizedInver Grove HeightsIn the A, E-1, E-2, R-1A, R-1B, and R-1C zoning districts2 off-street for the ADU and 1 off-street for the main homeYesMust share with main house1 acre for detached250 SF1,000 SFAttached, Detached, Internal 10.18.1ADU occupancy limited to 3 people 5 registeredLakevilleIn RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, and RS-4 zoning districts and Planned Unit Developments3 garage stalls for the ADU and main homeMust share with main houseAttached, Internal11.50.11.F, 11.51.11.F, 11.52.11.F, 11.53.11.FMust be accessed from inside the main home 2 permittedLong LakeIn the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districtsConditional Use Permit2 for the ADUYesx2 the minimum lot size required by the zoning district900 SFCannot be rented to non-family members1 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedMinneapolisAs an accessory to a permitted or conditional single-family or two-family dwelling.0 for the ADU, 1 space each for other units YesConnect to main home or the street300 SFInternal: 800 SF not to exceed the first floor of the main home.Attached: 800 SFDetached: 1,300 SF (incl. parking areas) or 16% of the lot area. Footprint not to exceed 676 SF or 10% of the lot area, not to exceed 1,000 SFAttached, Detached, Internal 537.11~120 permitted and builtMinnetonkaIn R-1 and R-2 zoning districtsConditional Use PermitDetermined on a case by case basisYesMust connect to main homeNo more than 35% of the gross living area of the home, including the ADU or 950 SF, whichever is smaller.Attached, InternalSection 300.16.3.d30PlymouthWithin residential subdivisions in RSF-R, RSF-1, RSF-2, and PUD zoning districts,that have received preliminary plat approval on or after June 1, 2001 and that include 10 ormore single-family lots2 off-street for the ADU YesDetached must connect to utility mainShall not exceed the gross floor area of the main home or 1,000 SF, whichever is lessAttached, Detached 21190.04Can only be constructed at the same time as the primary home, as part of a subdivision of 10 or more homes 0RichfieldIn R and R-1 zoning districts3 off-street spaces are requiredYesAttached and Internal may connect to home300 SF800 SF or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is lessAttached, Detached, Internal514.05 Subd. 8, 518.05 Subd. 8Detached units are only allowed as part of a garage. 2 existingRosevilleIn the LDR-1 zoning district1 additional off-street space for the ADU YesAttached and Internal may connect to home300 SF650 SF or 75% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, Detached, Internal 11.011.12.B.1ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be one bedroom or fewer5, 2 of which were legalized; 1 in processingShoreviewIn RE and R-1 zoning districtsAccessory Apartment Permit3 off-street spaces are requiredYesMust share with main house500 SFNo more than 30% of the building's total floor area nor greater than 800 SFAttached, Internal 207.01ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer St. PaulR1-R4, RT1, RT2, RM1, RM2Annual affadavit of owner-occupancyNo additional spaces if principal home meets minimum parking requirementYesMust connect to principal home 5,000 SF800 SF; if interior to the principal structure, the principal structure must be at least 1,000 SF and the ADU must not exceed 1/3 of the total floor areaAttached, Detached, InternalChapers 61, 63, 65, and 66 12 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedStillwaterIn TR, CTR, and RB zoning districtsIn CTR and RB: Special Use Permit4 off-street for the ADU and main house NoCan be connected to property or utility mainTR and RB: 10,000 SFCTR: 15,000 SFCTR: 500 SF, one story attached or 720 SF above a detached garageRB: 800 SFTR and CTR: Attached, Detached, InternalRB: Detached, above garage Sec. 31-50116 approved, but likely more that were permitted by right in RBWhite Bear LakeWhere single-family homes are permittedConditional Use PermitAnnual Certificate of Occupancy renewalDetermined on a case by case basisYesCan be connected to property or utility main200 SF for the first occupant plus 100 SF for each additional occupant880 SF or 40% of the habitable area of the main homeAttached, DetachedSection 1302.125Maximum of 4 occupants 10 permitted* Updated policy is currently under consideration as of February 20193