Loading...
10-08-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 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, October 8, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and City Attorney Maria Cisneros. Commissioner Angell was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes September 24, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Johnson referred to the first paragraph on page three and suggested the wording regarding new development be changed to state that Golden Valley is “fully developed” rather than stating that Golden Valley is no longer a city with “new development.” MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 24, 2018, minutes with the above noted change. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision – 1711 Xerxes Ave N – Jean and Dennys Annex – SU01-02 Applicant: Jack Benson Address: 1711 Xerxes Avenue North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing four single family residential lots into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a location map of the property and explained the applicant’s proposal to consolidate four existing lots of record and divide that into two new lots. He stated that the existing single-family home would remain and one new lot would be created with access via York Avenue North. Zimmerman referred to the Land Use Map and the Zoning Map and stated that the property is zoned and guided for low density, single family (R-1) residential. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the property and noted that it, along with many of the properties in this area, were originally platted as 50-foot wide lots. He referred to the photo of the property and showed how the applicant is proposing to create two new lots with approximately one third of the property creating the new west lot and approximately two thirds of the property creating the new east lot. Zimmerman stated that the minimum lot requirements in the R-1 Zoning District are 10,000 square feet in area, 80 feet of width at the front setback line, and 80 feet of width 70 feet Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 2 into the lot. He explained that Lot 1 to the east will be 16,559 square feet in size with a width of 99.77 feet and that Lot 2 to the west will be 10,395 square feet in size with a width of 100 feet. So overall, all of the dimensional requirements required by City Code have been met under this proposal. He added that at this point the proposal is to sell the proposed new western lot to a neighboring property owner who has no intention of building a new house. However in order to subdivide property an applicant must show that new lots are buildable and that utilities could be connected if at some point in the future the property is built on. Zimmerman stated that an Inflow and Infiltration inspection for the existing home has been scheduled and that any necessary repairs will be made with escrowed money, a tree survey has been completed, and a park dedication fee of $1,980 is due prior to release of the Final Plat. Zimmerman stated that because all of the City Code requirements have been met staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision. Segelbaum referred to the tree survey and asked why that was included with this proposal since the new lot is not proposed to be developed at this time. Zimmerman stated that providing a tree survey was added to the subdivision requirements a couple of years ago in order to capture a snap shot in time of any significant trees located on a property. He said it also allows staff to know what trees are on the property before any development occurs. Blum asked if this proposal is not considered to be a “flag lot” because there is access on both sides of the property and not just one access for two lots. Zimmerman said that is correct. Baker asked if there was a time when 50-foot wide lots were considered to be buildable. Zimmerman said yes. He added that they are still considered buildable lots and that there are a number of them in the City, but that new lots can’t be created that narrow any more. Baker noted that the property is a fairly steep lot and that the City Engineer has determined that it is not too steep to build on. Zimmerman agreed. Baker questioned why the City Engineer’s memo said this property is adjacent to Theodore Wirth Park. Zimmerman said this property is approximately 200-300 feet away from the park but there is no development between this property and the park. Johnson asked about stormwater issues that might affect neighboring properties as a result of developing this property. Zimmerman stated that stormwater issues would be reviewed as part of a building permit and grading plan submittal to make sure they aren’t impacting neighboring properties. Johnson stated that those same procedures have been followed in the past and that the Planning Commission has heard from neighbors who have ended up having flooding in their basements after development occurs. He questioned if anything additional could be done or if any type of monitoring could occur. Johnson referred to the City Engineer’s staff report where it refers to managing buckthorn in accordance with state and local laws and asked if a more direct statement could be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 3 made instead of just recommending that people obey the laws and rules. Zimmerman agreed that the City encourages people to follow the rules but that there are some issues that might have a higher priority than others. Johnson referred to the City Engineer’s staff report where it states that the property is not compliant with the City’s I/I ordinance and asked how the City knows the property is not compliant if an I/I inspection hasn’t yet occurred and the results are pending review. Zimmerman explained that means that there is no certificate of compliance on record and when the inspection is done and any repairs are made a certificate will be issued. Pockl asked why the lot is being split into two thirds and one third instead of in half. Zimmerman said it is his understanding that the proposed new property line is being drawn where the existing lawn area meets the wooded area. Jack Benson, Applicant, stated that his neighbor at 1717 Xerxes will be purchasing the proposed new west lot. He stated that he is proposing the new lot line where he is because that is where the grass turns into woods. He said there isn’t a month that goes by that he doesn’t get an offer from someone to buy his house. He said he thinks people are interested in flipping the property which would lead to cutting down a very large oak tree that is basically in the middle of the proposed new lot so he is interested in keeping the area as it currently is. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Baker said he thinks this is a reasonable application. Segelbaum agreed and said he doesn’t see a basis on which to deny the proposal. Johnson agreed. MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to approve the proposed minor subdivision of 1711 Xerxes Avenue North subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. A park dedication fee of $1,980 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 3. Revocation Discussion – Conditional Use Permit – 800 Boone Avenue North – CU-119 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 800 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To discuss the revocation of Conditional Use Permit #119 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 4 Zimmerman stated that the City Council voted to revoke Conditional Use Permit #119 however they voted to stay the revocation and send it to the Planning Commission to explore finding a way to accommodate the principal use at that location. Zimmerman explained that this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allows an Adult Day Care use at 800 Boone Avenue North. The CUP was approved is 2007 with a condition that allowed for “occasional evening social functions” to take place on the property. In 2009, the property owner asked the City Council to amend the Zoning Code to allow banquet/catering halls as a permitted use in the Light Industrial Zoning District. The City Council did not support this proposed amendment. Zimmerman noted that in 2011 the CUP was amended to increase the number of clients served at the facility. Zimmerman stated that the Police Department alerted staff to complaints about activity occurring at the property including: loud parties taking place in the late night and early morning hours, activity and noise spilling out into the parking lot, alcohol being consumed without a liquor license, and events open to the general public being advertised on Facebook. Zimmerman stated that staff reached out to the property owner to understand the scope of the events that were taking place and the property owner provided a calendar to staff that showed 29 events scheduled between June and December of 2018. These activities included conventions and parties beyond the “cultural and social” events for those in the adult day care program and had a large number of attendees. After reviewing the calendar, staff fees that the spirit of the original condition as well at other parts of the City Code were being violated. Zimmerman explained that staff proposed a set of mutual clarifying statements to the property owner regarding allowing occasional evening events and social functions because the original condition was not worded very carefully. However, the owner declined to agree to the proposed revised conditions so staff brought the issue to the City Council to explore revocation of the CUP. At the Council meeting a number of findings were determined including: the number of social events exceeded what would reasonably be considered “occasional;” the timing and length of the events exceeded what would reasonably be considered to be “evening” hours; alcohol was being consumed without a liquor license or permit in violation of Minnesota statutes; and the use of the facility as a banquet/catering hall is in violation of the City’s Zoning Code for the Light Industrial Zoning District. Zimmerman stated that the Council took two actions. They revoked the CUP which included all of the adult day care operations, but they stayed the revocation until November 7, 2018, because they think the adult day care is worthy use. They also decided to refer the matter to the Planning Commission to review and advise them prior to that date. Zimmerman noted that the Planning Commission’s charge is to review the history of the CUP and the recent issues leading to the revocation, review the findings made by the Council to support the revocation, and to discuss if amending the current CUP conditions might offer a solution to the problem short of revocation. He explained that there are three possible actions the Planning Commission could take. The first action would be to support Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 5 the revocation and send a recommendation back to the City Council with findings. The second action would be to explore amendments to the current CUP conditions and call for a public hearing on October 22 to gather public input and debate potential language changes. The third action would be to recommend no change to the CUP and allow the activity to continue as is. Segelbaum noted that the CUP was issued to Heartland Adult Day Care, a subsidiary of DRAM Properties, Inc and asked if they should be considered as one entity. Zimmerman said his understanding is there are two businesses operating at this location. One is a home healthcare business and the other is the adult care use. He clarified that they are linked but the CUP is specific to the adult day care use. Segelbaum asked if a CUP applies to the owner or the property, or if it applies to the space or to a tenant. Zimmerman stated that a CUP goes with the land and would stay in place if the property is sold or transferred. Segelbaum asked if a different portion of the space is hosting these events, or if the adult day care space is. Zimmerman said it is all the same space. Baker referred to the July 12 letter from DRAM Properties where it states that the property has been used since 2001 as operational headquarters for several organizations. He asked if the City specifies in the CUP all of the functions occurring in the space. Zimmerman stated that only the adult day care use requires a CUP. All of the other uses occurring are permitted uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District. Johnson said he noticed in the agenda materials that it states that events could only be organized on behalf of the employees or clients, but he does not see that in the CUP. Zimmerman agreed that is what is causing some of the confusion because that was discussed at the Planning Commission meetings, but the permit isn’t as clear. Baker agreed and reiterated that condition four in the CUP lists the hours of operation and states that there is an exception for “occasional evening social functions.” Brookins asked about the uses at the rear of the building, adjacent to the creek and if there are any concerns. Zimmerman said that the applicant has stated that there is a community garden in that area but that he would have to talk to the Engineering staff about if it was done according to all of the regulations and rules. Blum asked if information about the police calls for service has been made part of the public process. Zimmerman referred to the police summary report in the agenda packet which highlights calls made between January and August. He said he could get some more detailed information for the Planning Commission to review. Baker asked if the citations issued were issued to the applicant or to attendees at the parties. Zimmerman said he believes the citations were issued to the attendees. Baker asked why there has been no enforcement related to the use of alcohol without a permit and the disturbance issues. Zimmerman stated that part of what brought these issues forward was that the applicant was told they could have evening events so the police weren’t sure what the applicant was really allowed to do or not, and what the CUP’s limits are, so they brought it to Planning’s attention to get some clarification. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 6 Segelbaum referred to the possible actions discussed earlier and asked if the second option regarding exploring amendments to the current CUP would allow the Planning Commission to come up with amendments, or to recommend that the Planning Commission has a public hearing to come up with potential amendments at that time. Zimmerman explained that the City Council’s request to the Planning Commission is to explore if there is a way to solve these issues short of revocation. He said the only way to modify the existing CUP conditions is to do a formal CUP amendment process which includes a public hearing. He clarified that staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission on what route they want to take and then go forward from there. Segelbaum asked if it would help if the Planning Commission offered amendment language or input now in order to avoid revocation. Baker noted that the applicant was offered amendments/clarifications from staff and he turned them down. Zimmerman said staff would welcome Planning Commission and public input. Pockl asked Zimmerman if he knows of any complaints that have come forward during normal hours of operation when it is being operated as an adult day care. Zimmerman said he hasn’t heard complaints about the adult day care but he has heard concerns about the number of buses parking on the street and accessing the site. Baker noted that this is not a residential neighborhood and asked who has issued complaints and what the nature of the complaints has been. Zimmerman said there are some residential properties to the east and to north and that most of the complaints have been about noise, loud music, and activity in the parking lot. Blum asked approximately how far away the residential areas are located. Zimmerman said the ones to the east are approximately 100 feet away and the ones to north are much further away than that. Baker asked if there was any mention by the applicant of the party that was to occur the night after the City Council meeting regarding revocation. Zimmerman said no, the applicant did not mention the event that was to occur the next night. Baker asked for clarification about the juxtaposition between the revocation and the stay and how that transpired. Zimmerman stated there is language in the City Code regarding revoking CUPs. He said there is no way for the City to unilaterally change the conditions in a CUP so taking the step of revocation and then sending it back to the Planning Commission for the CUP amendment process is a way to allow the adult day care use to continue while addressing the other issues. Baker referred to the staff report where it states that the simplest and most straightforward solution would be to completely restrict evening social events at this location. He asked Zimmerman to discuss the pros and cons of that approach. Zimmerman reiterated that the CUP really needs to focus on the adult day care use. He stated that any business is allowed to have employee events and other activities take place after hours and if there were problems the police would deal with them on a complaint basis. In this situation because the evening events are lumped in with the adult day care use there is some hesitation to get too involved until the CUP issues are straightened out. He stated that a lot of the events seem to be banquet hall types of events which are not allowed so if it is made clear that only the adult day care use is allowed and that no banquet hall types of events are allowed it would be easier to enforce. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 7 David Olshansky, Owner of DRAM Properties, gave some history of the businesses at this site. He stated that the home health care business just uses the office space and is not part of the adult day care business. He stated that the adult day care services started in 2003 and that they currently serve approximately 200 clients daily. He said they provide food, snacks, transportation and medical services to their clients. He said they also meet the cultural needs of their clients which would be very difficult to find elsewhere. He said he probably extended too much by allowing the employees of Home Health Care to use the space because he is trying to accommodate every need that people have including social events. He said they don’t provide food or liquor at these events, they just provide the space. He stated that the facility has probably been misused and that it doesn’t compliment their services and good reputation. He said he is willing to work with the City to find a solution to how they can operate and provide services at this location. Segelbaum referred to the event space rental agreements in the agenda packet and asked Mr. Olshansky if he charges people for the use of the space. Olshansky said yes, they charge a minimal fee of between $700 and $1,200 to cover their costs and that some people were not charged at all depending on the event. Baker asked Mr. Olshanky about the other businesses he operates. Olshansky said they operate Physical Therapy of Golden Valley which does physical therapy, occupational speech therapy, and other services. He said they also operate Talent Solutions which is an employment agency for Home Health Care. He said they don’t do catering services or sell food. Johnson asked Mr. Olshansky how he would interpret the condition in the Conditional Use Permit that states the hours of normal operation shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm with the exception of occasional evening social functions. Olshanky said the adult day care services hours are 7 am to 5:30 pm and occupies approximately 15,000 square feet, but they have other businesses as well occupying the rest of the space so he thought the Conditional Use Permit only applied to the adult day care business not to the other businesses. He stated that “occasional” to him means not every day. He said the events are for their participants for example concerts and expositions which he thinks is a good use for people. He said there are not events every day or every weekend and that he agrees the events should be regulated and have probably been excessive. He clarified that the event held the day after the City Council meeting was an employee appreciation event and he had a food truck permit issued from the City for the event. Baker referred to the letter from staff dated July 30, 2018, which offered four clarifications to the existing CUP and asked Mr. Olshansky why he chose not to sign that letter or accept the clarifications offered. Olshansky said it was a mistake and he probably didn’t understand the letter correctly. Baker asked Mr. Olshansky if he would now find the clarifications in the letter acceptable. Olshansky said he would now sign the letter. He reiterated that he would like to work with City and get clarification on the things he is allowed to do. Baker stated that clearly Mr. Olshansky provides a service and he is reluctant to see this service go away. He asked Mr. Olshansky if it would be acceptable to him if the City Council Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 8 says there can be no after-hours events at all. Olshansky questioned if that would apply to the adult day care business or to all of the businesses because that is his confusion. Baker stated that staff felt confident in the clarifications written in the July 30 letter to Mr. Olshansky and that Mr. Olshansky has made some mistakes that he has owned up to so he doesn’t see any obvious reasons not to offer the same clarifications if there is an opportunity to do so. Johnson said he didn’t get a clear answer from Mr. Olshansky regarding his interpretation of “occasional evening social functions.” He said he doesn’t think it is the Planning Commission’s role to be negotiating something that is really a question of how the City should interpret those words. He said he is not sure why this issue has to be solved so quickly and he’s concerned about it exposing the City to more risk. He said he supports the revocation of the CUP. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider the three actions Zimmerman discussed earlier. Johnson said he doesn’t agree that they should be negotiating or trying to discuss what an amendment should be when there are other mechanisms in the City including Codes, attorneys, etc. that can interpret what “occasional evening social functions” means. He reiterated that he supports the revocation because occasional evening social functions don’t extend until three in the morning. Cisneros clarified that the City Council and herself as City Attorney have interpreted that condition and agree with Johnson that what was happening at the property was in violation of the CUP so it was revoked. If the Planning Commission and the City Council take no further action the CUP will be revoked and the adult day care will have to close on November 7, so that is why there has been some urgency. Blum said part of what the Planning Commission has been asked to do is discuss the City Council findings. He highlighted some of the things that stood out to him including the fact that there has been clear violation of City ordinances and CUP conditions, there have been noise complaints from hundreds of feet away, there have been parties that were potentially hosted by employees and profit being garnered by the property owner, and there were several admissions by Mr. Olshansky of misuse of the property which is both positive and negative. He suggested getting more details regarding the police reports to help with the revocation discussion. He added that there are enforcement options in this case as well and that citations could still occur. He stated that what they want isn’t necessarily punishment, but compliance so he supports the finding and conclusion of the revocation but they could consider staying the revocation further to try to come to an agreement with the property owner. Zimmerman stated that this doesn’t have to be a negotiation, as a body the Planning Commission is asked to come up with conditions that are relevant for containing any impacts of the use and to protect surrounding properties from negative impacts. Pockl asked if option two is picked by the Planning Commission which would be to explore amendments to the current CUP conditions if they could ultimately recommend revocation of the CUP. Zimmerman said yes, the Planning Commission could ultimately recommend revocation. Segelbaum said he feels that the Planning Commission has been charged with the task of trying to figure out what is appropriate in this case. He said there isn’t much room for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 9 misunderstanding. In 2009 Mr. OIshansky specifically asked to have a banquet business and was denied. He was allowed to have occasional evening functions, and now those activities have been going on until late in the evening. He said his sense is that if the City Council is asking the Planning Commission what is appropriate, he feels the adult day care use is an asset to the City. He said he doesn’t understand how they are going come up with language that permits certain types of parties and not others, or parties at certain times of the day and not others so he would feel most comfortable not allowing any evening events at all. Johnson questioned if the Planning Commission were to proceed with the second option of exploring amendments to the current CUP conditions how different they would be from the options given to the property owner in Zimmerman’s letter dated July 30. He asked why the City couldn’t just send the property owner another letter since he has indicated that he would now sign it. Cisneros explained that the City Council has now revoked the CUP and so the only way for the CUP to continue is for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council and to follow the CUP ordinance. Baker said he is inclined to go with the second options because it still allows for revocation if needed. Pockl agreed and said she thinks an adult care is a beneficial service in Golden Valley. Blum asked Cisneros if the Planning Commission can extend the revocation period in order to monitor if the property owner is complying with City ordinances and the CUP conditions. Cisneros said the City Council does have the authority to extend the stay but she didn’t know about placing a probationary period on the CUP itself without doing further research. Brookins said he would be in support of the second option and possibly adding further for restrictive conditions as needed to provide clarification. Blum said he supports revocation of the CUP. He said the findings and actions were appropriate. He said he also thinks option two would be reasonable as well if only to preserve the adult day care use which is a positive service for the community. Johnson asked what happens if the CUP is revoked on November 7. Zimmerman stated that the adult day care would have to cease operations and re-apply for a new CUP. Blum asked if there is a period of time that the property owner has to wait to reapply for a CUP or if there is a penalty to reapply. Cisneros said people are prevented from reapplying when an application is denied, but not revoked so the applicant could reapply right away. Johnson stated that the City Council deals with these kinds of issues day in and day out and are much closer with the business community than the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission is being asked to revisit a rule that wasn’t followed. The property owner was sent a letter telling him to stop having events and he didn’t stop and now they are considering spending time rewriting the language to what end so he supports the first action which is revoking the CUP. Segelbaum agreed, but doesn’t want to discontinue the day care service for 200 people in the community. Baker agreed. Johnson said the City shouldn’t be held hostage to that and that this issue is out of the scope of the Planning Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 10 Commission. Brookins said he is in support of the second option to explore amendments because they will have to opportunity to add conditions to the CUP. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Brookins and motion carried 5 to 1 that the Planning Commission review at its October 22 meeting an amendment to the current CUP conditions for CU-116 at 800 Boone Avenue North. Commissioner Johnson voted no. Blum asked if at the October 22 meeting the revocation could be finalized. Cisneros stated that nothing further is needed to finalize the revocation, it is already final. Johnson stated that this business incurred this revocation so maybe the business owner and not the City could do something to take care of his 200 clients in the interim. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Johnson noted that he attended a portion of the recent APA MN Planning Conference and specifically learned a lot at a session on public art. 5. Other Business  Planning Commissioner Training – CUPs Zimmerman introduced the topic of CUPs and the fact that they govern uses that are permitted but may have unusual impacts and so conditions may be attached to the approval. Evaluation must be related to the impact of the use and if the applicant can show all of the criteria in the City Code have been met then the CUP must be approved. He gave some examples of both residential and commercial CUPs and then discussed the difference between quasi-judicial and legislative decisions by the City. Blum asked about the role of the Commission in making legislative decisions. Cisneros replied that the Commission can influence the decision but ultimately the City Council decides. Cisneros presented five rules for CUPs, including: the City’s role is to evaluate the impact of the use using the criteria set forth in the conditional use ordinance, conditions imposed on a conditional use permit must bear a substantial relationship to the criteria in the ordinance and the City may not impose impossible or unreasonable conditions, the City must consider mitigating conditions that may satisfy the standards of the ordinance, the factual record must be carefully documented and focused on how the facts relate to the criteria in the conditional use ordinance, and the City can enforce the terms and conditions of conditional use permits. The Commission discussed various legal cases related to CUPs and findings of fact. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 8, 2018 Page 11 • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall reported that the residential facility at 2429 Douglas Drive received approval from the City Council at the last meeting. He also updated the Commission on the progress with recodifying the City Code, the adoption of a new master fee schedule, a CounciVManager meeting discussion regarding architectural and material standards, and the presentation from the Urban Land Institute on Phase I of the Downtown Study. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. ., o;f � ,� � � C-'��.-°� J Ron lum, Secretary Li ittman, Administrative Assistant