06-13-11 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2011
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
June 13, 2011. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall,
Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development
Mark Grimes and City Planner Joe Hogeboom.
1. Approval of Minutes
May 9, 2011 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried to approve the May 9, 2011
minutes as submitted. McCarty abstained from voting per his absence on May 9.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit Amendment— 800 Boone
Ave N — CU-119 Amendment#2
Applicant: DRAM Properties (Legacy Adult Daycare Inc.)
Purpose: To allow for the expansion of the existing adult daycare use within
the same building for property located in the Light Industrial Zoning
District.
Grimes introduced the applicant and explained that the applicant intends to expand the
adult day care facility at 800 Boone Ave. The expansion would allow the facility to
eventually hold 265 persons, as per State requirements. Grimes stated that the existing
CUP only allows the facility to serve up to 70 clients or the amount that is specified by the
State. He stated that the applicant has another adult daycare facility in Golden Valley.
The facility on Boone Ave opened in 2007. Grimes explained that one of the tenants in
the building, Leeds, Inc, recently vacated 12,500 sq. ft. of space allowing the daycare
business to expand.
Waldhauser asked if there are immediate plans to accept new clients to the facility.
Grimes said that he believed there were not and suggested that the Commission discuss
that matter with the applicant.
McCarty questioned why an Inflow and Infiltration inspection was required for this current
amendment but was not required for the original Conditional Use Permit approval. Grimes
stated that policy was not in place at the time of original approval that required Inflow and
Infiltration inspections to be completed. McCarty asked Grimes to clarify the inspection
process and timeline. Grimes explained that once the records of the inspection are
reviewed by the City, the City may request immediate action to correct faults in the sewer
line, or it may allow the applicant to deposit escrow funds for later correction. Grimes
stated that the matter is handled by the City's Public Works Department and is not a
zoning issue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2011
Page 2
Kisch questioned how the State determines the maximum number of clients the daycare
facility can be licensed for. Grimes stated that the total occupancy load for the building is
determined by the State Building Code and that the occupancy load for the daycare
facility is determined by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Grimes explained
that building size, number of employees and number of bathroom facilities factor into that
decision.
McCarty asked if the Conditional Use Permit is valid for the entire building or only the
portion currently occupied by Legacy Adult Daycare, Inc. Grimes stated that the current
Conditional Use Permit is valid for only the original space occupied by Legacy Adult
Daycare, Inc., but the amendment will validate the Conditional Use Permit for the entire
building.
Kluchka inquired about the need to limit the number of clients in the Conditional Use
Permit. Grimes stated that the number of clients could be removed from the Conditional
Use Permit, as it is regulated by the Building Code and the Minnesota Department of
Human Services. Segelbaum stated that he feels that the total number of clients should
not be stated in the Conditional Use Permit.
Kluchka asked if there is a need for a designated bus parking area on the site. Grimes
stated that the occupant has expressed an interest in creating a drop-off area for busses
on the site but that no loading area will be constructed on the street. Kluchka questioned
if there is need to address bus storage in the Conditional Use Permit. Grimes stated that
he feels that is not necessary and that he has not seen bus parking to be a problem on
the site.
Randy Engle, archite�t with Buetow and Associates, Inc., introduced himself and stated
that he was hired by the property owner to create plans for the daycare expansion. Engle
stated that the occupancy load of the building is determined by the calculation of 35 sq. ft.
per client as well as the number of plumbing features on the site.
David Olshansky, president of DRAM Properties, Inc., introduced himself and described
his business model. He stated that the business senres mostly elderly Southeast Asian
immigrants between the hours of roughly 9 am — 3 pm, Monday through Friday.
Olshansky stated that the facility currently serves around 70 total clients, but all clients
are not typically in the building at the same time, as the daycare service offers frequent
client field trips to shopping centers, casinos, the YMCA, and other destinations.
Segelbaum asked if there are any logistical concerns of adding more clients to the facility.
Olshansky stated that the building can accommodate more people, so he does not
anticipate any logistical issues related to the proposed expansion. Olshansky also stated
that there are multiple entries into the building, so clients do not have to wait to enter the
facility when they are dropped-off.
Waldhauser asked if there were any plans with the east end of the property. Olshansky
stated that he intends to develop a garden for clients in that location.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2011
Page 3
Kisch asked if the site frequently holds parties and banquets and if the client Ioad
increases would the number of parties also increase. Olshansky estimates that the site
holds approximately eight banquets per year, and that he has no plans on increasing the
number of banquets at the site.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Kluchka stated that the he supports removing reference to the number of clients served in
the Conditional Use Permit language, instead replacing it with language that defers the
maximum client load to the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
Cera asked if there were any issues or concerns with the banquets that are held on the
site. Grimes stated that there have not been any issues because the banquets serve only
clients and employees of the business. Grimes stated that banquet facilities that are open
to the public are prahibited in the Light Industrial Zoning District.
Waldhauser questioned the outside storage facilities and dumpsters on the site and
questioned the applicant's plans regarding screening. Grimes stated that the dumpster
must be screened, and that he has required that the temporary outside storage facilities
be removed from the site by August 1.
Kluchka asked for clarification about whether or not the Conditional Use Permit applies to
the entire property or just the portion of the property currently occupied by Legacy Adult
Daycare. Grimes noted that the Conditional Use Permit amendment will make the permit
applicable to the entire property.
Kisch asked if another adult daycare business could occupy at the location under the
current Conditional Use Permit. Grimes stated that it could. Grimes also stated that the
building could be used for other uses permitted in the Light Industrial Zoning District if
Legacy Adult Daycare vacated the premises.
Segelbaum recited the ten factors in City Code used to determine findings for a
�Conditional Use Permit.
Grimes suggested adding bicycle parking as a requirement to the Conditional Use Permit.
The Commission agreed with this suggestion.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of amending Conditional Use Permit CU-119, 800 Boone Ave N., to
allow for the adult daycare center to serve a total number clients specified by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services subject to the following conditions:
1. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's sign code. The Golden
Ballroom sign shall be removed by August 1, 2011.
2. The site plan prepared by Buetow and Associates and dated May 6, 2011 and titled
"Existing Site Plan" shall become a part of this approval.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2011
Page 4
3. The adult day care shall be limited to the amount specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm with the exception of
occasional evening social functions.
5. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements.
6. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human
Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult daycare operations
may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Director of
Planning and Development.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers must be screened in a manner acceptable
to the Inspections Department.
8. The trailer used for storage and other temporary storage buildings must be removed
from the site no later than August 1 2011.
9. An Infiltration and Inflow Inspection and required compliance rehabilitation identified
by the inspection must be completed prior to approval of the amended CUP by the
City Council. If the rehabilitation cannot be completed by the time of the approval of
the amended CUP by the City Council, DRAM Properties may post an escrow in a
form approved by the Director of Public Works of 125% of the estimated cost to
complete the rehabilitation work. The work must be done within 90 days of approval
of the amended CUP by the City Council. If the work is not completed by that time
the City has the right to use the escrow to complete the work.
10. The applicant will provide an onsite bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
11. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Development, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011
shall become a part of these requirements.
12. All other applicable local state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
The Planning Commission bases its recommendation on the following findings:
• The proposed expansion of adult daycare at this location is consistent with the
General Land Use Plan map and zoning for this area.
• There is an increasing need for adult daycare services, especially with the large and
growing number of adults in Golden Valley and the metro area over 65 years of age.
• Legacy Adult Daycare is an experienced provider of adult daycare services.
• The site provides adequate parking, access and amenities for the clients and office
uses in the building.
3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending
Variance-Related Language in Section 11.90: Administration of City Code —
ZO00-87
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To amend the standards for granting variances due to recent
legislation regarding "practical difficulties."
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2011
Page 5
Hogeboom discussed recent legislation that changes standards for granting variances.
He stated that, in response to a 2010 State Supreme Court decision, a new law was
enacted that enables cities and counties to grant variances to zoning regulations based
on "practical difficulties." Hogeboom stated that practical difficulties exist if:
• The property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by an official control.
• The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
• The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
• A variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Hogeboom explained that the section of City Code that regulates variances must be
updated to reflect the new variance law.
Segelbaum stated that he believes the City Code language should include the four
qualifiers for a practical difficulty, stated by Hogeboom. Cera agreed and stated that City
Code would be more understandable to property owners if it incorporated the bullet
points.
Kluchka inquired if ordinances and City Code revisions are proof-read by those not
affiliated with the City to ensure that they are comprehensible and well-understood.
Grimes stated that this does not occur, but the City's Communication Coordinator reviews
the documents and provides feedback as needed.
McCarty questioned the timeline for variances, and asked for clarification on what
qualifies as an "other action" in the one-year time period in which a property owner must
act on a variance Order. Hogeboom stated that "other actions" are typically viewed as
applications for permits. McCarty requested that this item be clarified by the City Attorney.
Segelbaum questioned the appeals process for a variance ruling and asked when a
property owner can act on a variance that is granted. Hogeboom stated that a variance
can be acted upon following the receipt of the Final Order of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The Final Order is typically mailed within a few days following a Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting. Segelbaum questioned how a property owner can act on a variance ruling
several days after a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting when an aggrieved parly,
presumably a neighbor, has up to 30 days from the mailing of Final Order to appeal a
variance ruling. Hogeboom stated that he believes there is a legal reason for the
timeframe. He will discuss this matter with the City Attorney and report back to the
Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Cera requested that the written and parenthetical numbers in the Ordinance be
consistent.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kluchka to recommend amending Section 11.90:
Administration of City Code and incorporate the following:
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2011
Page 6
• Better define the definition of"practical difficulties."
• Make consistent the written and parenthetical numbers in the code language.
• Review and possibly modify reference to "other actions" in Section 11.90, Subd. C.
Paragraph 3.
• Determine if language in Section 11.90, Subd. C, Paragraph 2 should be modified to
reflect a more streamlined timeline for a variance appeals process.
Upon further discussion, the Planning Commission voted to table the action to allow staff
to better address the above questions.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kluchka to withdraw the motion.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Schmidgall to table amending Section 11.90:
Administration of City Code to the June 27 Planning Commission Meeting and direct staff
to:
• Better define the definition of"practical difficulties."
• Make consistent the written and parenthetical numbers in the code language.
• Review and possibly modify reference to "other actions" in Section 11.90, Subd. C.
Paragraph 3.
• Determine if language in Section 11.90, Subd. C, Paragraph 2 should be modified to
reflect a more streamlined timeline for a variance appeals process.
8. Other Business
Hogeboom announced the upcoming open houses for both the Bassett Creek Regional
Trail planning and the Bottineau Transitway planning, both taking place on June 14.
Waldhauser announced the upcoming Wirth Park Improvements meeting also taking
place on June 14.
Waldhauser requested that staff clarify "findings" and what the Commission should cite as
findings for upcoming issues. Hogeboom will discuss with the City Attorney and report
back to the Commission at the next meeting.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.
,�cn.� � �
David Cera, Secretary