Loading...
08-28-17 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 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, August 28, 2017. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Black, Blum, Johnson, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Blenker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes August 7, 2017, Special Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page two and asked for clarification of the last sentence. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the August 7, 2017, Special meeting minutes as submitted. Blum abstained. August 7, 2017, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the discussion about Tennant Company and asked for clarification of the third paragraph. Segelbaum asked that Commissioner Kluchka's resignation from the Planning Commission be added to the minutes. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the August 7, 2017, Regular meeting minutes with the above noted change. Blum abstained. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — 6960 Madison Avenue West—Adult Day Care Center in the Industrial Zoning District— CU-158 Applicant: Global Adult Day Services, Inc. Address: 6960 Madison Ave. W. Purpose: To operate an Adult Day Care Center in the existing building. Goellner explained the applicant's proposal to operate an adult day care center in unit #10 of the office/condominium building located at 6960 Madison Avenue West. She stated that the property is zoned and guided for industrial uses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 2 Goellner explained that there will be 4 to 6 employees on site and up to 30 clients or as many as allowed by the State Building Code and the MN Department of Human Services. She stated that the hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 8 am to 5 pm. Goellner referred to the transportation on the site and stated that there is good access into the site because there are two driveways, the site is accessible by transit and walking, and that the applicant will have two full-size vans that they will use to transport some of their clients. She added that there are 98 existing parking spaces and that the applicant is required to have 6 spaces for this proposed use. Goellner stated that all other zoning requirements have been met and that the engineering, building, and fire-related issues will be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. She stated that a neighborhood meeting was not required in this case because there are no residential properties nearby. Goellner stated that based on the evaluation of the factors listed in the Zoning Code staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions included: the applicant may serve up to 30 clients or whatever is allowed by the Building Code, the Fire Code, and the Department of Human Services, and that the hours of operation be limited to 6 am to 7 pm Monday through Friday. Segelbaum noted that this building was built in 1979 and questioned if the accessibility and access issues will have to be addressed, or if they would be grandfathered in. Goellner stated that the number of accessible parking spaces is addressed in the Building Code and that a change in use will require the building to be "brought up to code." Segelbaum asked how staff came up the amount of clients allowed. Goellner stated that the applicant requested 30 clients, but the final number of clients will be determined during the final building design based on Building and Fire Codes. Baker asked if the final number will be determined before this proposal goes before the City Council. Goellner said no because the applicant wants to have their land use approvals before they do they final design plans. Waldhauser referred to the transportation issues and noted that there is limited bus service on Medicine Lake Road and on Douglas Drive and questioned what other types of transportation would be used. Goellner said families would drop off and pick up clients and that clients will use bus service and Metro Mobility. Waldhauser asked if the definition of Adult Day Care Center is a State definition or a City definition. Goellner said the definition was created by City staff. Waldhauser questioned why the City would want to limit Adult Day Care centers to functionally impaired adults as mentioned in the definition. She added that some clients might just need a social facility. Goellner said she would do additional research on the definition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 3 Black noted that the staff report stated that there will be four employees but the narrative refers to more positions. Goellner stated that they are proposing to have 4 to 6 employees. Blum asked if there is a target market in terms of income. Goellner said she believes the applicant is targeting people who are at 50% below the median income level. Johnson referred to the hours of operation and said it would be his preference to have applicants work with staff regarding the hours of operation so that what the applicant is requesting and what is in the Conditional Use Permit match. Goellner stated that staff is suggesting limiting the hours from 6 am to 7 pm but that does not mean they have to be open those hours. Baker asked what standards or inspections are involved in licensing. Goellner said they are related to safety and health issues. She added that when the applicant applies for a building permit staff will require a copy of their license. Baker asked if the neighboring properties were contacted. Goellner said yes, and added that this property has a condo association who will decide if they want to allow this type of use. Johnson asked if the City Attorney has reviewed this proposal in regard to liability since there will be a registered nurse and doctor visiting the site. Goellner stated that the City would not be liable for the medical services provided. Baker referred to the staff report which states that the other uses in the building are primarily daytime uses, with few employees, so staff does not anticipate any issues or concerns with co-locating an adult dare care business in the building. He asked if that was written in error because the adult care business is also a daytime use. Goellner clarified that the other uses in the building aren't very large so adding an adult day care center won't put the building over capacity. Baker asked if the applicant has other facilities. Omar Hassan, Applicant, said they have another day care center in St. Paul and that they want to close that one and open a smaller one in Golden Valley. Blum asked Hassan about their target market. Hassan explained that their business is designed to save costs for the State. He stated that the clients would come to the center for six hours per day. Blum asked if approving this proposal would mean that the City is helping them provide affordable care for seniors. Hassan said yes. Baker asked about the costs. Hassan said the costs are approximately $48 to $49 per day and are set by the State. Segelbaum said this is an excellent service and something Golden Valley needs. He noted that the area shown on the floor plan, used the majority of the time, seems small for 30 people. Hassan stated that the space is divided into two with 1,000 square feet in the front used for office space and cot rooms and approximately 1;000 square feet in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 4 the back that will be used for an activity room. Segelbaum asked the applicant how he determines that the building can accommodate 30 people. Hassan stated that they need 5 square feet per person and that the State will determine how many clients they can have. Johnson asked the applicant if they will be serving Golden Valley residents. Hassan said yes. Baker noted that the application states that they will be serving youth as well and asked the applicant what the demographic will be. Hassan said they will serve clients 18 and older. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said this sounds like a great service and it seems to fit in the proposed location so she is in favor of it. She added that the regulatory issues will be addressed at the State or County level. Baker agreed. Blum also agreed and said it will be a more affordable option than 24/7 care. Segelbaum said the number of clients concerns him, but he is confident that the Department of Human Services will determine how many clients they can have. He suggested adding a condition of approval that states they can have no more clients than allowed by the State license. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #158 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Global Day Services Inc. has demonstrated that demand exists for the unique social services they provide. Based on their expertise and experience with other similar adult day care centers, they are able to provide these services in an efficient and responsible way within the City of Golden Valley. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An adult day care center is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its property value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the proposed use is minimal. The current uses in the building generate a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting in the introduction of the proposed adult day care center. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 5 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of clients and employees will be limited by occupancy limits for Unit #10. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a concerning increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed use will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications and only a utilization of the existing parking spaces on in the parking lot, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the City Code. 10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects from the proposed use. Conditions 1. The plans by submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Maximum occupancy for Unit#10 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than allowed by the State. If additional space or occupancy levels are desired in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3. Hours of Operation for Global Adult Day Services Inc. are limited to 6 am — 7 pm Monday through Friday. Any extension to these hours requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 4. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require signage be installed to assign the parking near the entrance to Unit#10. The City reserves the right to require that these parking spaces be reserved for this use. Other modifications to the days or hours of operation may be required to adequately address parking concerns. 5. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 6 3. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Map Amendment— 5509 Lindsay Street— CPAM-62 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 5509 Lindsay Street Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Map from Right-of-Way to Medium-Low Density Residential. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 5509 Lindsay Street— Z012-20 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 5509 Lindsay Street Purpose: To rezone the property from Right-of-Way to Moderate Density Residential (R-2) The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 3 and 4 were combined. Goellner referred to the subject property on a map and stated that it is currently guided and zoned as right-of-way. She stated that the property has always been vacant and was purchased by MnDOT for highway development. She explained that the property is 13,155 square feet in size and is large enough for two lots, but an easement for the existing retaining wall, and the topography of the lot makes it unlikely that it would be two lots. She stated that staff is recommending that the property be guided Medium-Low Density Residential and Zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-2). Baker noted that the staff report states that the property doesn't meet the lot width requirements in Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. Goellner stated that the lot is buildable for one single family home or one duplex. She added that staff is recommending R-2 because there are other duplexes nearby and it would be difficult to build two separate single family homes because of the wall easement. Goellner stated that staff did consider other options including park/open space, but there are maintenance costs and it is not part of the city-wide comprehensive parks plan. Blum stated there are several other commercial/industrial properties in the area and questioned if those types of uses have been considered for this property. Goellner said she would not recommend commercial/industrial uses for this property because there are homes right next to it. She added that a significant portion of this property isn't buildable and she thinks the property would sit vacant if it were zoned Commercial or Industrial. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 7 Black stated that the subject property is fairly small and asked how the size of the adjacent lots compare to this property. Goellner said the adjacent lot is approximately 120 ft. x 140 ft. in size which is rather large for a single family home. Waldhauser referred to the Comp Plan definition and noted that there isn't a definition listed for medium-low density. Zimmerman explained that the Comp Plan map has a medium-low density category, but the Comp Plan text describes the same density range as medium density residential. He stated that this discrepancy will be fixed during the Comp Plan update process. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum referred to the area bounded by Highway 55 on the south, Douglas Drive on the west, and Golden Valley Road on the north and stated that the majority of the properties in that area are Light Industrial, Industrial, and offices. He questioned why they are limiting the subject property to R-2 when it seems like development is trending toward something else. Zimmerman stated that the City has the ability to rezone and guide this property however it wants. He agreed that there are some Industrial uses to the south, but there is a duplex right next to it and he doesn't think this is the best corridor for Commercial use. He said R-2 would be compatible with the other residential uses in the area but it is not the right location for Industrial or Commercial uses. Baker agreed that Lindsay Street is not the right location for Industrial or Retail/Commercial uses and he believes the proposal makes sense. Blum said rezoning the property to Industrial or Commercial could bring more value to the City and that R-2 could bring some negatives such as encouraging rental properties rather than owner- occupied properties so he doesn't see the value in zoning these properties R-2. Black questioned if two driveways would fit along the Lindsay Street side of the property and said he would recommend zoning the properties R-1 instead of R-2 because it is smaller than other properties in the area. Segelbaum said R-2 seems to fit and he would like to see the area reinvigorated. He suggested considering reguiding and rezoning this property during the Comp Plan update process instead of looking at it now. Zimmerman stated that staff didn't know this property was going to be for sale when they presented the proposed Land Use chapter to the Planning Commission a few months ago. He said now that the City knows the property is for sale it makes sense to consider how it should be zoned and guided. Baker said they may be overlooking an opportunity and agreed that this should be tabled and addressed during the Comp Plan update process. Blum agreed. Zimmerman said he would clarify what can be done with the property if it is not zoned at all. Segelbaum asked if the zoning has to match the Land Use Map. Zimmerman stated that the City has nine months to make the maps align with each other. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 8 Baker said he doesn't think the Planning Commission has enough information at this point to make a decision. Goellner stated that staff did look at this proposal in a comprehensive manor and that the hearing notice to the neighborhood stated that the property is proposed to be zoned R-2 and if a different type of use is suggested the neighbors might want to know that. She stated that if this lot were larger the City might be open to other types of zoning, but this is a fairly small lot so she doubts anything other than residential will be built there. Waldhauser asked if the property supports R-1 development. Zimmerman said the property would support one single family home or one duplex. Waldhauser agreed that given what is around the subject property she doesn't see anything other than R-1 or R-2 being developed. Segelbaum questioned if the Planning Commission could vote on the property being rezoned and reguided to R-1 given that the hearing notices said R-2. Blum stated that the staff report suggests it's open to discussion. Zimmerman noted that the hearing notice said R-2. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried 3 to 2 to recommend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Map from Right-of-Way to Medium-Low Density Residential. Commissioners Baker and Blum voted no. Blum said he thinks the motion is premature given the pending Comp Plan update that may have an impact on many different properties like this one. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and motion carried 3 to 2 to recommend denial of rezoning the property from Right-of-Way to Moderate Density Residential R-2. Commissioners Johnson and Waldhauser voted no. Johnson said he thinks it is ok to have pockets of R-2 and he is not against having rental properties. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker to recommend rezoning the property from Right-of-Way to Single Family Residential (R-1). Blum said the Planning Commission has recommended that the Land Use map be changed to Medium-Low density but recommended denial for rezoning it to R-2. He stated that the General Land Use Map and the Zoning Map would not be in alignment if the property is zoned R-1. Zimmerman clarified that the concern is that the Planning Commission would like the City Council to consider Low Density guiding and R-1 zoning. The Commissioners discussed the confusion between the Zoning Map, the 2030 Comp Plan Land Use Map and text, and the proposed 2040 Land Use Map. Segelbaum withdrew his motion. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 9 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to reconsider the first recommendation regarding the change in land use. Johnson said they need to take into consideration what the proposed new Comp Plan designations will be. Segelbaum asked staff why they recommended the land use be moderate-low density residential versus low density residential given the fact that the surrounding properties are all low density residential. Zimmerman said there are some inconsistencies in the current Land Use Map and Zoning Map and that is something that will be fixed during the Comp Plan amendment process. Johnson said he'd like the property to be zoned R-2 Segelbaum said it seems premature to reguide and rezone this now. MOVED by Cathy, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of amending the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Medium-Low Density Residential in order to consider this items during the Comp Plan amendment process. 5. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Map Amendment— 1611 Lilac Drive North — CPAM-63 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 1611 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Map from Right-of-Way to Low Density Residential. 6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1611 Lilac Drive North — Z011-16 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 1611 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To rezone the property from Right-of-Way to Single Family Residential (R-1) The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 5 and 6 were combined. Goellner referred to a map of the property and discussed the history. She explained that the property was guided and zoned for single family homes in the 1950s and two homes were built. The property was purchased by MnDOT for Highway 100 expansion and both homes were demolished in 2000 and the property was left as right-of-way. Baker asked why MnDOT didn't use the property. Goellner stated that several homes were demolished, but that MnDOT purchased the properties in their entirety. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 10 Goellner stated the property is buildable for single family homes and is eligible for a lot split because it meets the width and lot size requirements. She added that staff has received direction from senior management to get these types of properties back on the tax rolls. Waldhauser asked about the blank property shown on the map just to the south of the subject property. Goellner said that is also right-of-way, but it is not a buildable parcel. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum said every property surrounding this one is R-1 so his thinks it is a great spot for a new home. Segelbaum agreed. Waldhauser also agreed but added that the driveway would be on the frontage road which is a bit isolating, but there are several properties like this in the City. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of amending the General Land Use Plan Map to guide the property at 1611 Lilac Drive North from right-of-way to Low Density Residential. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 1611 Lilac Drive North from right-of-way to Single Family Residential (R-1). --Short Recess-- 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that the City Council will be advertising for the open Planning Commission spot soon. 8. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. • Election of Secretary MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to elect Blum as Secretary. Blum accepted. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 pm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 11 � , . � �� � Ro Blum, Secretary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant