Loading...
01-13-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 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, January 13, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner McCarty was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes November 18, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 18, 2013 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Carousel Automobiles (Porsche Dealership) PUD #95, Amendment#2 Applicant: Twin Cities Automotive (Porsche) Address: 9191 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To expand the existing building and modify the parking lot. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request for a PUD amendment which would allow them to construct additions on the north and southeast sides of the existing Porsche building. The proposed additions would expand the size of the building from 12,994 square feet to 26,655 square feet and would include new service bays, car wash, offices and employee facilities. He noted that the expanded building footprint will replace existing paved areas so there will be no change in the amount of impervious surface on the site. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is also proposing to modify the parking lot which would reduce the number of parking spaces from 193 to 154. He referred to a site plan and noted that the parking spaces will be redistributed to provide 15 customer spaces, 46 employee spaces, 93 display spaces and that 18 of the proposed new display spaces would be partially within the 35-foot front yard setback along Wayzata Blvd. He added that pervious pavers would be used for the proposed display spaces in order to maintain the existing amount of pervious surface. Waldhauser asked if the City considers pervious pavers to be pervious surface. Zimmerman said yes. Boudreau-Landis asked how many parking spaces are required. Zimmerman explained that the Zoning Code requires 1 space per 1,000 square feet of showroom space and 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 2 space per 5,000 square feet of outside display space. However, this proposal is a PUD so it is allowed to vary from those requirements. He added that staff has also asked the applicant to add bicycle racks as well. Segelbaum asked if the applicant has considered making the parking space dimensions smaller in order to have more spaces. Zimmerman stated that the applicant can address the size of the proposed new parking spaces, however, the existing parking spaces will remain the same size. Kluchka asked about landscaping plans. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing to relocate some trees and to plant additional trees and bushes on the property. Nguyen Hoang, Baker Associates,150 South Fifth Street, Architect for the project, showed the Planning Commissioners an updated site plan. He stated that the parking stall dimensions have not been reduced and will be the standard 9 ft. wide x 18 ft. deep, however, the customer parking spaces will be 10 feet wide. He explained that there will be a sidewalk adjacent to the building made with pervious pavers that will follow the curve of the building as opposed to how it currently curves away from the building. He stated that the parking area for displaying cars will also follow the curve of the building which will increase the width of the drive aisle and make navigating the parking lot easier. Waldhauser asked if the proposed new changes will affect the amount of impervious surface. Hoang said it will increase the impervious surFace slightly. Segelbaum asked the applicant to address the percentage of impervious surFace versus pervious surface. Steve Sabraski, Civil Engineer for the project, explained that the additional impervious surFace being added to the site will be offset by the pervious pavers they are proposing so there will only be a slight net increase in the amount of impervious surFace. Waldhauser asked if the proposed pavers are permeable or pervious. Hoang explained that water will pass through the pavers and percolate into the ground. Segelbaum asked the applicant if they are comfortable using this type of paver. Hoang said yes, they have used these pavers on projects in the past. He added that there is some maintenance involved but they should hold up just as well as concrete. Waldhauser asked if there will be a maintenance agreement required. Grimes said yes, the City will want to see that they are being maintained properly. Kluchka asked the applicant if they are proposing to install a bicycle rack. Hoang stated that a bicycle rack will be installed as part of their sidewalk plan. Boudreau-Landis asked if display cars will be parked on the sidewalk area. Hoang said that display cars could potentially be parked on the sidewalk adjacent to the building if there is enough space and if they won't infringe on the sidewalk space. Kluchka asked about the timeline of the project. Hoang stated that they would like to start construction in the spring and he anticipates that the remodel will take approximately nine months to complete. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 3 Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how they feel about allowing the display area in the front setback. Waldhauser said she is alright with it in this case because no other property awners will be impacted. Baker said he is concerned about setting a precedent and that other dealerships will feel they can display cars in setback areas. Segelbaum said that the adjacent properties also have lesser setback areas so this proposal would be consistent with the setbacks already in the area. He agreed that no one will be impacted by this proposal. Kluchka agreed and added that the proposed new drive aisle width is better. Baker asked if staff could provide more quantitative data on how this proposal is different than others dealerships in the City. Kluchka suggested that the applicant provide a better rendering of what the display area will look like when they come before the Commission for their Final PUD Plan review. Grimes noted that the dealership next door has a display area of double stacked cars in their front setback area. Cera added that the setbacks in a PUD are a guideline, not mandatory. Cera said he is not sure if the proposed pavers are equal to the grass area that is being removed. Grimes said there are arguments that sod isn't really a pervious surface either. He added that the City Engineer feels comfortable with the proposed pavers and that it could be a good precedent to set. Kluchka suggested adding a condition regarding design review and the addition of bicycle racks. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for PUD #95, Amendment#2, Carousel Automobiles subject to the following findings and conditions: Findincls 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. 7. The PUD plan proposes a significant improvement to the parking lot/drive aisles. 8. The PUD plan proposes a new and unique use of pervious pavers. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 4 Conditions 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of the approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department shall become a part of the approval. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 4. A design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final PUD approval. 5. A bicycle rack shall be added to the property. 6. Additional renderings of the site, particularly the display area, shall be provided prior to Final PUD approval. 7. The Applicant or Owner must enter into a maintenance agreement for the pervious pavement. 8. The approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informa) Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — 345 Pennsylvania Ave S — Commercial Use over 10,000 Square Feet in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District— CU-136 Applicant: Fundus Praedium (LifeSpan) Address: 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To operate a youth transition program consisting of office, medical office and educational uses in the existing building. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a youth transition program consisting of office, medical office, educational uses and a possible employee only on-site daycare in the future. He stated that commercial uses that are more than 10,000 square feet in size located in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district require a Conditional Use Permit. He referred to a site plan of the property and discussed the applicant's proposal to renovate the interior, construct an elevator on the southwest corner of the building, improve the front entrance area, add new windows on the west side of the building and improve the upper parking lot area. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Waldhauser asked if the applicant is proposing to use the lower level parking lot. Zimmerman said he doesn't think the applicant has any plans to modify the lower parking lot or any of the driveway entrances. Boudreau-Landis asked if the overall sizes of the parking lots are staying the same. He also asked about the condition of the lower parking lot. Zimmerman said the footprint of the parking lots will stay the same and that both parking lots are in okay condition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 . Page 5 Kluchka asked about the original use of the building. Zimmerman said it has historically been used as an office/warehouse space. Grimes added that the building was originally used by Mark Hurd Aerial photography. Waldhauser asked if Speak the Word Church (owner of the property) uses the parking lots on this site. Kluchka said he doesn't see a lot of activity on the property. Segelbaum noted that the application referred to the possible opening of an employee only, on-site daycare facility and asked if the applicant would have to come back to the City to amend the Conditional Use Permit if approved. Zimmerman said yes, a Conditional Use Permit amendment would be required if they decide to open a daycare on site in the future. Segelbaum asked if there are specific statutes or ordinances related to schools. Grimes stated that the City's Deputy Fire Chief has reviewed the plans as they relate to the Buifding Code and is comfortable with proposed occupancy. Baker asked if the property has been purchased from Speak the Word Church. Grimes said he didn't know, but the Church did sign the Conditional Use Permit application, giving permission to the applicant to apply. Mike Whalen, Applicant, stated that they have a purchase agreement with Speak the Word Church and that LifeSpan also leases a building from them in Burnsville and would now like to have a location in the west metro. Kluchka asked about proposed improvements to the parking lots. Whalen stated that it is not LifeSpan's intent to use the lower parking lot. They would use the upper parking lot for intake and visitor parking. He discussed the proposed interior improvements and the elevator addition. Kluchka asked the applicant if there will be bicycle racks installed. Whalen said they would be willing to install bicycle racks. Kluchka asked the applicant if they are planning to screen the air conditioning unit located on the roof. Whalen said he didn't think the unit was visible and added that the proposed elevator addition should provide some screening. Kluchka suggested that be shown on their plans. Traci Hackmann, representing LifeSpan, explained that their clients are all children who have mental health issues and come from all over the metro area. She stated that the kids are at their facility from 8 am to 2 pm, Monday through Friday for approximately 6 to 9 months. She discussed the services they provide including academic support, intervention and therapy. Kluchka asked about the number of clients they will have. Hackmann said their capacity is 85, but they typically have approximately 75 clients at one time. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 6 Waldhauser asked about their outdoor needs. Hackmann explained that they will have an indoor gym, but they do not typically have outdoor recess or use outdoor space. She added that if they open an employee only daycare they may need some outdoor space for that. Segelbaum asked if they take the kids on field trips or walking trips. Hackmann said that the kids may go out with staff supervision but that there aren't many field trips and if they have a field trip they would use their own vans for transportation. Segelbaum asked if their other locations are close to residential properties like they would be at this site. Whalen stated that their locations in Burnsville and Shoreview are in commercial/business areas. Segelbaum referred to LifeSpan's web site where it states that they offer focused services for clients that do not respond to conventional treatment and have problems or pose a risk to another's well-being and may require crisis intervention. He said that concerns him and asked for further explanation. Hackmann stated that the kids are supervised at all times. She added that the interventions referenced on their web site are internal interventions and that kids that pose a risk to another's well-being in a different setting is an example of person who might be referred to their program for intervention. Segelbaum asked if the kids are referred to LifeSpan by the courts. Hackmann said no, their clients are not court ordered to attend their facility. Baker asked how their clients are referred to them. Hackmann said that only parents can sign up their children. Baker asked if the 18 year old clients have more freedom to come and go. Hackmann stated that all of their clients use vans and buses for transportation and if they were at that level of freedom to come and go as they please, they probably wouldn't need LifeSpan's services. Cera asked about funding. Hackmann stated that they have a fee for service model with insurance companies paying most of the fees along with some private pay clients. Kluchka asked about access and security and how the kids' activities are managed and controlled. Hackmann stated that the kids arrive in school buses or a LifeSpan van and if they are not able to travel in the van or bus without issue, they would probably not work well in their program. Baker asked about the adult to child ratio. Hackmann stated that the ratio is nine adults to 24 clients, which includes four teachers, five clinicians plus administration staff. Segelbaum asked how much traffic would be generated. Hackmann explained that the kids are dropped off in the morning and picked up in the afternoon either by school bus or by their LifeSpan vans. Segelbaum asked if there could potentially be 85 buses, dropping off and picking up each child individually. Hackmann said there would be a maximum of 12 to 15 buses, potentially fewer if they use their own vans. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 7 Kluchka asked about the traffic pattern people will use to get to the site. Hackmann said she thinks that the I-394 access will be ideal. Baker asked if people would use Pennsylvania to access their site. Hackmann said she didn't know. Cera noted that the facility to the east has a lot of buses as well and asked how LifeSpan's hours would compare to theirs. Kluchka suggested a condition be added stating that the two businesses should coordinate with each other if traffic becomes an issue. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she is concerned about traffic and volume. She referred to the discussion regarding the applicant not using the lower parking lot and stated that the upper parking lot will not hold that many cars, along with the proposed buses. She said a lot of the neighbors in the area have young kids and there is a lot of dog walking so the buses will aggravate the problems. She said she is also concerned about a stretch of Pennsylvania that is a sheet of ice. She said she likes that LifeSpan's ratio is 9 to 24, however, she wants clarity that the staff is with the kids and that their offices are open until 5 pm. She said she has concerns about the medical facility because the property will be a magnet for burglars and vandals if there are medications on site. She said people are going to use Pennsylvania as a connector street and questioned the effect on their property values. She stated that LifeSpan's other two locations are not located in residential areas and that she wants some additional numbers and facts regarding this proposal. Mark Bass, 170 Oregon Avenue South, said he is concerned about what type of notification and arrangements will be made regarding the additional amount of phone calls the police will receive. He discussed police calls received by Ramsey County and the City of Burnsville in regard to their other finro locations. He said this is in his backyard and he is extremely concerned about this type of activity and wants to know who will be responsible for added City staff. Kristin Peterson, 330 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she is very concerned about the traffic issues because Pennsylvania is a main artery with lots of traffic. She said there are 13 kids on Pennsylvania and Quebec and some of them walk home from school. She said her kids let themselves in and she doesn't want to have to make different arrangements to make sure she is home to let them in because of the additional traffic. She said that Pennsylvania is a huge test driving road even though she knows the dealerships are told that they are not allowed to let their clients test drive on Pennsylvania they do, every single day at 40 miles per hour. She said Pennsylvania is also a heavy pedestrian area with people going to the ponds and to Lions Park. It is also a noisy area with the freeway noise and industrial noise, so adding more traffic noise would compromise their neighborhood. She said she looked at the Comprehensive Plan and it seems like this proposal is in conflict with number two of the land use goals, objective and policies which states that the City wants to minimize conflict between land uses by providing open space buffers between residential and commercial/industrial areas, segregate residential and commercial traffic and protect and respect traditional residential neighborhoods. She said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 8 she respects the work LifeSpan does but the use is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the traffic issue is going to be a nightmare. Ward Wheeler, 350 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said there are obviously traffic issues. He stated that LifeSpan's other locations appear to be significantly smaller than this one and asked if there is anything that precludes other uses once they've received approval for an office use and he would like someone to explain why they need 17,000 square feet. He said LifeSpan is not an educational organization. They do not have licensed teachers or at least they are not being paid by schools to provide education and they have filed lawsuits against various school districts attempting to obtain money. He questioned if these are the people they want in their neighborhood. He said there needs to be due diligence done about these people because they seem to want to avoid the idea of school and he thinks there is a reason. John VanderAarde, Grand Slam Sports, 12425 River Ridge Blvd, Burnsville, said he is LifeSpan's neighbor at their Burnsville location. He said they've been a great neighbor and they have never been robbed or burglarized and there has been no graffiti. He said there have been no problems with the buses during the morning drop off time and that there is about a 15 minute window in the afternoon when the buses are in the parking lot but there have been no issues or problems with any of the kids in their facility in 24 years. Segelbaum asked VanderAarde if any of LifeSpan's clients go to his facility. VanderAarde said rarely, maybe on a special occasion. Barbara Crolley, 310 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said the traffic doesn't bother her but it does bother her when people go very fast up the hill toward I-394 because there are school aged children in the area. She said people do cut through from I-394 to Winnetka to go west on Highway 55. She said the school issue is one of her pet peeves because teachers in the U.S. don't work full time like they do in the rest of the world where they have longer school days and longer school years. Joel Martin, 230 Nevada Avenue South, said his concern is that the area behind the building tends to be used as a sledding hill and he gets a fair amount of foot traffic through his yard. He said he is concerned about agitated kids going out their back door or going into his yard to smoke. He asked if kids will be taken to the field area or if it will be used for Phy Ed. Kristin Peterson, 330 Pennsylvania Avenue South, stated that three years ago LDK wanted to put three homes in this location. She said her feeling is that the entire area is a zoning error and reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan states that there should be a buffer between residential and commercial and that there is a conflict in land uses. Sue Wheeler, 350 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said there is confusion about whether the property has been sold or if there is a contingency offer. She said she also agrees that the area is ideal for residential and they don't need the traffic. Brian Klein, 510 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said he is especially concerned about property values, also traffic and safety. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 9 Waldhauser asked about the capacity of the parking lot for staff parking and buses so they wouldn't have to stack on Pennsylvania. Whalen stated that the current lot has approximately 45 parking spaces. He referred to a site plan and described the drop off area for buses and how they would circulate and stack on the site. Kluchka questioned how there can be 12 to 15 buses and vans dropping kids off in an area that looks like it could accommodate about four. Whalen stated that the buses and vans won't be there all at the same time. Hackmann added that there are about 35 employees and that there will be enough space for their vans. She stated that typically smaller sized buses drop off their clients. Kluchka suggested a condition of approval be added to require the applicant to submit an adequate parking plan. Waldhauser asked if there will be medication on site. Hackmann said they don't prescribe medicine and there would only be minimal amount of inedication on site for kids who take medication during the day. She explained that there are many state regulations regarding medication that they have to follow. She added that the term "medical use" on the application is referring to mental health treatment. Waldhauser asked the applicant if their other locations are much smaller in size as previously mentioned. Hackmann stated that their Burnsville location is 20,000 square feet in size and their third location is approximately 19,000 square feet in size which is almost the same as this proposed Golden Valley location. Waldhauser asked the applicant to address the police and sheriff support mentioned during the public hearing. Hackmann stated that if they need to transport someone to the hospital, police, along with the ambulance are part of the protocol. Baker asked about the frequency of emergency calls. Hackmann said that it happens but they work with the police so they know what to expect. Baker said he would like to know the demands on the City's police. He asked the applicant to provide a summary of police calls at their other facilities. Kluchka asked if public safety has reviewed this proposal. Grimes stated that the Fire Chief has reviewed the application and added that there other homes and nursing homes in Golden Valley that will have many more police calls than this use probably will. Baker said it would be helpful to have a summary of the last five years. Kluchka agreed that it would be useful and helpful to have that information but questioned if it is germane to the land use proposal. Kluchka asked for clarification on the hours of operation. Hackmann stated the kids are on-site from 8 am to 2 pm, and the office hours at 7:30 am to 3 pm but the office is open until 5 pm. Segelbaum asked about the status of the ownership of the property. Whalen stated that it is currently under a purchase agreement. Segelbaum asked who the parties are in the purchase agreement. Whalen said his company Fundus Praedium and Speak the Word Church are the parties involved. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 10 Segelbaum asked if clients will be loitering in the area. Hackmann said their clients are not allowed to smoke and they don't want their clients to vandalize or loiter so they would be trying to prevent that. Baker asked if they would reject clients who smoke. Hackmann said they could at their discretion. Segelbaum asked the applicant if they would be using the neighboring field area for recreation purposes. Whalen said no. Kluchka asked the applicant to address the resident's concern about credentials of their staff. Hackmann stated that in order to provide mental health services they have professional licensed practitioners and licensed teachers, teaching assistants and special education teachers who are all full time employees. She said it is accurate that some of the education is paid for by the school districts but it varies kid by kid and district by district. Segelbaum asked if there are credentials for the facility as well. Hackmann stated that they are authorized by the Department of Human Services to provide certified day treatment services. Baker referred to the resident's comment about lawsuits at their other facilities and questioned if it is the Planning Commission's place to ask about that. Kluchka said he doesn't think it is the Planning Commission's place because this is a private business. Kluchka asked if there could be an opportunity for the Public Works Department to provide some historical traffic information, history of complaints or potential for future studying or monitoring. Grimes stated that the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and they are not concerned about the amount of traffic generated by this use. He explained that the land is too valuable for single family residential homes and that he has had developers show interest in this site for apartments which would create much more traffic, up to 700 to 1,000 trips per day, whereas this proposal would generate approximately 300 trips per day at most. He added that Pennsylvania has the capacity to handle the extra trips and noted that at one time, this building had 75 to 100 employees working there. Kluchka stated that there is a question of a perceived traffic issue and that the streets are being used for test drives and cut through traffic. Grimes said he would send a letter to the dealerships in the area asking them not to test drive in the neighborhood. Waldhauser suggested that people not be able to test drive cars without a salesperson. Kluchka said he thinks there is a need to re-look at the traffic issues. Waldhauser suggested restricting the bus access to the site. Kluchka suggested that the drivers be instructed to follow a specific route. Boudreau-Landis suggested that a condition of approval be added stating that the traffic for this site access the parking lot off of Laurel Avenue. Grimes stated that the City has tried to minimize the number of curb cuts on Laurel Avenue. Kluchka referred to the resident's comment about the icy conditions on Pennsylvania and asked about the best way to give extra attention to this area. Grimes suggested that residents call the Public Works Department when there is a problem. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 11 Kluchka asked what the applicant would have to do if they wanted to change the use of the building in the future. Grimes stated that if the applicant wants to make any changes regarding the use they would have to amend their Conditional Use Permit. Baker noted that one consideration for a granting a Conditional Use Permit is the effect on property values. Kluchka said he would like to hear staff's thoughts regarding property values on properties that are not being used and properties that are improved. Grimes stated that properties that are improved can enhance the neighborhood. He added that this building has been sitting, not fully utilized, for a long time and it has not always been taken care of. In this case, the applicant is considering enhancements to the property which could be an advantage to the area. He stated that traffic can reduce property values but he doesn't see how the proposed amount of traffic with this use will affect property values. Baker said the concern he is hearing is beyond the value of a vacant building versus a used building or an underutilized building. He said he appreciates the service the applicant provides but he also wants to address the neighbors' concerns and issues. Kluchka stated that from a zoning perspective there is a wide range of potential uses for a commercial property. He said he shares the concern about this property being a commercial property surrounded by residential, but it is what it is and he doesn't know if a specific commercial use of the property will have a positive, neutral or negative effect on property values. Baker reiterated that the Planning Commission is required to review the effect on property values. Waldhauser said she doesn't see anything in this proposal that would cause a negative effect on property values. Whalen stated that $900,000 to $1,000,000 will be invested in this property which will bring considerable value to the area. Grimes added and that a medical/office building is not an unusual mix of uses. Baker asked staff to address the resident's comment regarding this use not being compatible with Comprehensive Plan. Zimmerman stated that the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district allows a number of uses and that this proposed use is not incompatible with that zoning district or the Comprehensive Plan designation. The issue is whether these properties should be zoned and guided the way they are for the long term. Baker stated that maybe the designation of this property should be reconsidered when the City updates its Comprehensive Plan. Grimes stated that staff and the Planning Commission and City Council struggled with including this property or not when the I-394 study was done, but it was decided at the time to rezone and re-guide this property I-394 Mixed Use. Kluchka summarized the proposed conditions they've discussed as follows: screening of the roof-top mechanicals, design review, submission of a circulation, access and parking plan, submission of a landscaping plan and a public safety review regarding police calls. He suggested another condition of approval be added regarding on-going communication with the neighbors. Baker suggested a condition stating that there will be no outdoor activity allowed. Grimes suggested stating instead that any outdoor activities will be supervised. Cera suggested that the applicant be required to discuss the coordination of traffic with the neighboring property owner. Grimes suggested that the applicant submit a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 12 plan showing how many buses there will be, where they will stack on the site and how they will be kept off of Pennsylvania. Waldhauser suggested that the applicant require that no traffic be allowed to come from the north and that all traffic to their site must come from the south. Segelbaum questioned if it is worth accepting this proposal given all of the conditions that have been suggested. He added that he thinks they've done a good job of addressing all of the neighbor's concerns and with the conditions they've discussed he would support this proposal, especially since there are other uses that could be far more disruptive to this neighborhood. Waldhauser agreed and said that when she considers the alternative types of uses that would be allowed at this property, the proposed use is just about the least impactful there can be when compared to a large residential development or a more intensive, noisier, messier use. Cera agreed and added that this use is a benefit to kids who have issues and need this service. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South to allow a commercial use over 10,000 square feet in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs 1. The applicant has demonstrated need for the use. 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. There will not be a negative effect on property values in the area. 4. The traffic generated from the proposed use will not conflict with current traffic in the area. 5. The density or population in the area will not increase due to the proposed use. 6. There will not be an increase in noise by the proposed use. 7. The proposed use will not create dust, odor or excessive vibration. 8. The proposed use will not attract animal pests. 9. The proposed use will not significantly alter the visual appearance of the existing building. 10. No other negative effects of the proposed use are anticipated. 11. The applicant is making a significant investment in an underutilized property. 12. The use is a benefit to Golden Valley and the larger community. 13. The use is consistent with the City's use intentions for the property. Conditions 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Chief John Crelly, dated January 3, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department, dated January 6, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All improvements to the building shall meet the City's Building Code requirements. 5. All signage shall meet the City's signage requirements (Section 4.20). 6. Rooftop equipment (HVAC) shall be screened from view from the surrounding single family homes. 7. A design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2014 Page 13 8. Landscaping shall be installed to screen the parking areas from the surrounding single family homes. 9. The applicant shall provide four bicycle parking spaces. 10. The applicant shall create a Traffic Access Plan that directs trips by buses, vans, and employee vehicles to and from the property via Laurel Avenue. 11. Any staging area for school buses or vans shall be contained within the parking lot. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Circulation Plan that diagrams the parking lot layout at peak capacity. 12. The applicant shall coordinate daily trips with the business located at 7400 Laurel Avenue (WorkAbilities, Inc.). 13. Staff shall ask the Police Department to review the proposed use of the property and provide comment prior to a City Council vote. 14. There shall be no unsupervised outdoor activities on the property. 15. The applicant shall work with the neighborhood to establish a regular means of communication regarding potential impacts from the operation of LifeSpan at the property. 16. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 17. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker gave an update of the Bottineau Transifinray Station Area Planning Advisory Committee. He that that the consultant hired for the project and a representative from the Minneapolis Park Board will be attending a meeting in the future, but that the committee is just getting started at this point. 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 pm. � ,' r"°' - -... ° r� � c/` `f �i _ Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant