09-11-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
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,
September 11, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Blum, Johnson, Pockl, and
Segelbaum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Brookins was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
July 23, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Johnson referred to the discussion regarding the Future Land Use Map and noted that
the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and Highway 55 is guided for Medium Density
Residential. He questioned why the same criteria isn't being used for the area by Wally
Street when it is also along the same high intensity traffic corridor. Blum said he agrees
that the area by Wally Street hasn't been treated the same as the Winnetka
Avenue/Highway 55 area. Goellner said she could pass on the Commissioners
comments. Johnson said he would summarize his concerns in an email and send it to
Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to approve
the July 23, 2018, minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit—2429 Douglas Drive North
— CU-161
Applicant: Retro Companies, Inc.
Address: 2429 Douglas Drive North
Purpose: To allow for a 22 unit senior and transitional care facility in the R-2
Zoning District.
Goellner stated that this property is currently zoned R-2 and guided Medium-Low Density
Residential. The future land use map guides the property Moderate Density Residential.
She explained the applicant's proposal to construct a 22-unit Residential Facility that will
be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health and will provide 24-hour care
including assisted living, transitional care, and memory care. She stated that the
proposed building would be two stories in height and will meet the R-2 Zoning District
requirements. She added that the floor plan is designed for assisted living and that the
units do not include kitchens and will share bathrooms.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
Page 2
Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and stated there are 12 parking spaces
proposed and that the Zoning Code requires five parking spaces and four bike parking
spaces.
Goellner stated that the applicant anticipates having three shifts with three to seven
employees and zero to six visitors at a time depending on the shift. She added that the
applicant is interested in a potential second phase of development which would use the
property to the south at 2417 Douglas Drive. She noted that any proposal for a
Conditional Use Permit for this second phase would require additional public hearings.
Goellner discussed the evaluation criteria used when considering Conditional Use
Permits and stated that this proposal has demonstrated the need for a Residential
Facility, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will have no effect on property
values, will have no adverse effect on traffic, and there is no significant concern
regarding noise, dust, odor, vibration, and pests. She noted that the City's Mixed-Income
Housing Policy is not applicable in this case and that Commissioner Brookins questioned
if stone or brick exterior materials could be used to help mitigate any negative visual
impacts.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conditional Use
Permit with the following conditions:
1. The facility may serve up to 22 persons and must maintain appropriate licensure from
the State of Minnesota.
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street.
Scheduled deliveries to the property must occur after 8 am on weekdays and
weekends.
3. The exterior dumpster shall be screened from view and made of material compatible
with the building.
Johnson questioned if this facility will serve the needs of Golden Valley residents or
residents of other cities as well.
Segelbaum stated that the requirement of five parking spaces seems small and
questioned how the parking requirement is calculated. Goellner stated that the parking
requirement is one parking space per five beds. She noted that none of the residents will
have cars so the parking spaces will be used by employees. Baker stated that during
holidays and other times there will be a need for additional parking and questioned
where that would occur.
Baker asked about the property to the north. Goellner stated that 2501 Douglas Drive is
a single family home. She added that she has not been contacted by the owners of that
property.
Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, discussed the exterior building materials. He stated that
they will be using LP Siding and cedar shakes with different colors and that they will be
using a significant amaunt of manufactured stone which will help the building fit in with
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
Page 3
the neighborhood. He showed the commissioners a photo of their Fridley location. Blum
asked if the design choices were made in order to make the building fit in a residential
area. Ofsthun said yes, they are trying to give the building a house feeling.
Ofsthun referred to the parking and stated that they based the number of parking spaces
on their other facilities. He agreed that holidays are tougher regarding parking but they
try to schedule car pools and stagger event times. He suggested that parking could
occur on Wynnwood Road or at the shopping center to the north. He agreed that holiday
parking will need to be addressed, but the day to day parking will be fine.
Segelbaum asked how many parking spaces there are at the Fridley Iocation. Ofsthun
said there are 10 outdoor spaces, and six indoor spaces and that they also have some
on-street parking available. Segelbaum asked if that has been sufficient. Ofsthun said
yes.
Blum referred to the site plan and asked about the spaces in the parking lot that have
diagonal lines drawn through them. Ofsthun explained that the hatched areas shown on
the site plan are loading/unloading areas and ADA areas. Blum asked if that means that
there are aetually only nine parking spaces that are able to be used. Ofsthun said no,
there 12 parking spaces total.
Johnson asked the applicant if this facility will be for Golden Valley residents. Ofsthun
stated that they need to keep the facility full. He added that they could possibly give
some priority to Golden Valley residents, but that they could not guarantee that. Don
Krause, Property Owner, stated that there is a very large need for this type of facility and
that they will only be meeting 25% of the need. He added that patients will come from all
the hospitals in the area and that the potential second phase will help with the need as
well.
Baker asked what the capacity of the second phase would be. Krause stated that the
second phase would be almost identical to this first phase. Baker commented that this is
not a senior living facility, but rather a facility for people coming out of a hospital and
waiting for a longer term facility. Krause agreed.
Segelbaum noted that there will be medical transports brought to the site and asked
about the plan for how patients are brought into the building. Krause stated that the
loading area is accessible and will be used to bring patients in and out. Ofsthun added
that the driveway will be 24 feet wide with plenty of room to maneuver around this small
facility.
Baker asked the applicant if they will provide any financial assistance. Krause explained
that at this time there is a financial level they have to hit in order to provide this type of
specialty care. He said he would consider allowing a small portion of the building to be
used for people who need financial assistance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
Page 4
Baker referred to the third condition in the staff report and said it should be reworded to
state that the screening, not the dumpster, should be made of materials compatible with
the building.
Pockl asked about the plans for the south side of the property. Ofsthun said that will be
green space, maybe with a walking path.
Blum asked about snow storage plans. Ofsthun said if there is a major amount of snow it
will be removed from the site and that regular amounts of snow will be pushed alongside
the driveway and near the dumpster.
Johnson asked about the proposed porous asphalt shown on the plans. Ofsthun stated
that they have used porous asphalt in other projects they've done. He explained that it
looks like regular pavement but it allows water to filter through it and infiltrate into the
ground below it so it is good for stormwater management. Blum asked if it was correct to
say that 30% of the asphalt would be porous asphalt. Ofsthun stated that approximately
two-thirds of the asphalt would be porous asphalt.
Angell asked if the regular asphalt areas will drain toward the street or toward the porous
areas. Ofsthun said the site slopes slightly from the west toward the street.
Pockl referred to the renderings and asked about the third story window when this is a
two-story building. Ofsthun stated that is just a window in the gable and not a third story.
Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker
closed the public hearing.
Baker said he is concerned about the amount of parking. He suggested adding a
condition that requires them to use a shuttle at certain times or to have a plan to deal
with any potential issues. Segelbaum stated that the applicant could require their
employees to park off site during certain events. He added that the Zoning Code requires
fi�e parking spaces and that the applicant is providing 12. Blum stated that the
Commission could use the adequacy of the parking as a part of their evaluation of the
Conditional Use Permit. Baker reiterated that he wants some sort of commitment from
the applicant to address the parking concerns. Goellner suggested adding a condition
that requires a plan for parking that is satisfactory to the City Attorney. Segelbaum said
that would be reasonable. Johnson asked why the plan couldn't be satisfactory to the
City Manager instead. Blum suggested the language state that the plan needs to be
satisfactory to the City. Goellner said she would add that as a fourth condition of
approval.
Blum referred the City Engineer's staff report and noted that a lot of the requirements are
"musts" but when it came to removing buckthorn from the property the memo says
"recommends." He stated that it is required by law to remove invasive species so it
seems appropriate to make that a requirement. He also suggested that there be a
required amount of time for removal and that it should be maintained for the duration of
the CUP. Goellner noted that there is a statement in the staff report which states that the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
Page 5
approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development. Failure to comply with one of more of the above
conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Blum said he thinks they need to
clarify it in the CUP as a condition because residents have asked the City to do this.
Goellner noted that the tree and landscaping ordinances can also be used to make sure
buckthorn is removed. Blum said he doesn't want it to be thrown by the wayside and that
he wants it to be condition of approval, not just a recommendation. Johnson said he
doesn't think they need to make it more complicated than to say they have to follow all
the rules. He added that there are a number of rules that the applicant will have to follow
without calling them all out. Blum questioned how the City addresses what they have
heard from the public. Baker said he agrees that removing buckthorn is important, but he
agrees with Commissioner Johnson that it is not more important than all of the other
rules and laws the applicant will have to follow.
Blum said thinks the application was done well, but none of the items in the applicant's
narrative get put into an agreement and they aren't requiring anything that is asserted in
the application. He said he would like to see some assurances that the things mentioned
in the application actually happen. Baker asked Blum is there is anything in particular
from the applicant's narrative he would like to see added to the approval. Blum said he
thinks it is reasonable to say that the whole document should be part of the approval and
that the applicant should be held to the things they are asserting. Baker noted that an
applicant's narrative is more aspirational than firm or set in stone at this point in the
process. Ofsthun said he would agree with adding their narrative to the conditions of
approval. Segelbaum questioned why the Planning Commission hasn't required that for
every petition they've heard and said he always assumed that was the case already.
Goellner noted that there is going to be some training regarding Conditional Use Permits
in October. She stated that the training will discuss how much applicants are held to,
what the City is allowed to require, the legal implications, etc. She added that the City
Attorney is recommending the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Blum said
in effect staff is asking the Planning Commission to disregard what the applicant has
submitted. Segelbaum said he thinks the Planning Commission has to accept what the
City Attorney has recommended or table this proposal to get further clarification. Baker
said it doesn't seem fair to table this particular application. Blum said he just wanted to
be clear that they are disregarding the applicant's assertions. Segelbaum said that if
there is something they feel strongly about it should be made a condition.
Angell asked Goellner if the applicant's narrative is taken into account when writing the
staff report. Goellner said yes and explained that conditions of approval should be
related directly to the impact of the specific use of a 22-unit residential facility. She added
that staff relies on all of the City's ordinances to address problems that may come up
with properties that have, or don't have, a Conditional Use Permit.
Blum referred to the staff s recommendation regarding delivery times and noted that it
addresses a delivery time for drop-off's in the morning, but it does not recommend a time
in the evening. Baker suggested the delivery times be 8 am to 8 pm. Segelbaum
suggested 8 am to 5 pm since there are single family residential properties nearby. He
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
Page 6
added that that this appears to be the sort of care facility that is needed, the building
looks nice, and will be an asset to the community. Baker added that it is also in a terrific
location and he is impressed with the application submittal. Blum agreed that the building
looks like it will meld into the surrounding residential area.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit#161 subject to the following findings
and conditions:
Findings
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: The applicant has indicated that the
market in Golden Valley would be supportive of the type of housing being proposed
for this Iocation.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed residential facility use is
consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map and the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan states that a variety of housing types and designs should be
provided in order to allow for greater housing choices for Golden Valley residents.
3. Effect on Property Values: There is no evidence to support an argument that
property values would be either positively or negatively affected by the presence of a
residential facility in this location. Assessing staff anticipates that there will be no
effect as long as the property is well maintained.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use will not
generate any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. However, deliveries to
the property should be made off-street whenever possible to mitigate short-term
congestion.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposal will increase the
population at the location as compared to the previous use. This is not expected to
have a negative impact.
6. Mixed Income Housing Policy: This proposed Residential Facility is exempt from
the Mixed Income Housing Policy requirements because it is not a market rate
residential rental development. The proposed building is designed for residents
requiring 24-hour medical care and does not include any units designed for
independent living.
7. Increase in Noise Levels: This use will generate slightly more noise than a typical
single-family home due to regularly scheduled deliveries. However, deliveries will be
limited to regular business hours.
8. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
9. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
10. Visual Impact: The proposed facility adheres to the R-2 zoning requirements and is
designed to fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The building
orientation on the site allows for the front side of the facility to look similar in size to a
single family home while extending further back into the site. It would have minimal
visual impact and would be consistent with other properties in the area.
11. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The use is expected to make a positive impact
on new residents of the facility.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
Page 7
Conditions
1. The facility may serve up to 22 persons and must maintain appropriate licensure from
the State of Minnesota.
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street.
Scheduled deliveries to the property must occur between 8 am and 5 pm on
weekdays and weekends.
3. The exterior dumpster shall be screened from view. The screening shall be made of
material compatible with the building.
4. A plan addressing parking for planned events will be subject to review by the City.
3. Draft 2040 Comp Plan Update — Public Comments
Goellner explained that the public comment period for the Draft 2040 Comp Plan Update
ended July 15. Staff will be working on incorporating the comments into the Plan and
would like to know if there are any items on the list in the agenda packet that stand out to
the Planning Commission or anything the Planning Commission wants staff to follow-up
on. She stated that the Plan will be coming to the Planning Commission in November for
a public hearing.
Segelbaum suggested organizing the comments by chapter.
Blum suggested adding the survey comments to get a larger response pool in order to
give proper weight to particular issues. Segelbaum agreed that all of the comments made
should be added. Goellner stated that all of the comments have been added.
Baker asked if staff has heard from any of the adjacent cities. Goellner said no, but they
have until November to respond.
Johnson referred to the comment asking that the word "citizen" be replaced with the word
"resident." He said the word "citizen" is actually more inclusive so he suggests defining
the words or using the same logic in the whole document. Goellner stated that staff is
going to talk to the City's Communications Manager and the HR Director about which
term to use.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
5. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 11, 2018
Page 8
Council Member Schmidgall stated that the Council will be discussing the Mixed Use
ordinance revisions and the budget at their next Council/Manager meeting.
Schmidgall noted that the Arts and Music Festival is occurring on September 15.
Schmidgall stated that the new Latitude 14 restaurant is opening soon and Under
Pressure Brewery is still working on their space.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 pm.
. �
h, � �
R n B m, ecretary Lisa W an, Administrative Assistant