Loading...
11-26-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 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, November 26, 2018. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner 1. Approval of Minutes November 13, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 13, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – 5530 Golden Valley Road – Watermark Senior Living – ZO11-18 Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC Address: 5530 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To rezone the property from Commercial to Single Family Residential (R-1). 3. Informal Public Hearing – Lot Consolidation – 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North – SU11-10 Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North Purpose: To consolidate three lots into one lot 4. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit – 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North – CU-162 Applicant: Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North Purpose: To allow a Residential Facility serving 25 people in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District Items 2, 3 and 4 were presented and discussed together. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 2 Goellner referred to a location map of the properties and explained the applicant’s proposal for a 25-unit residential facility which would offer 24-hour care for assisted living, transitional care, and memory care. Goellner noted that 5530 Golden Valley Road is zoned Commercial and the other two properties are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. She added that all three properties are currently guided for Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and that the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan also guides the properties Low Density Residential. Goellner referred to a site plan of the proposal and explained that the proposed lots combined into one would be 39,563 square feet in size. She discussed the proposed building footprint, the parking lot, the driveway out to Lilac Drive, and the setbacks. Goellner reminded the Commissioners that in May 2018 the applicant proposed to rezone these properties to build a similar facility which was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission. She compared the differences between the previous and current proposals. The previous proposal was to rezone the properties to R-3 with 40 units, 3 floors with the top floor as a full story, and a larger building footprint with smaller setbacks. The current proposal is to rezone the properties to R-1 with 25 units, 3 floors with the top floor as a half story, and a smaller building footprint with larger setbacks. Goellner referred to a chart of the staff analysis regarding how the proposal fits in with the Zoning Code and stated that the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Goellner referred to the height of the proposed building and explained that the City determines the average grade of a lot based on the grade of the previous structures. She stated that the new building can only increase the average grade by one foot. Based on those calculations the existing average grade is 894.1 and the proposed average grade would be 895.0. Goellner referred to a photo of the applicant’s Fridley location and discussed the similarities to the proposed Golden Valley location. The colors of the building would be tan, white, light brown, and pale yellow. They are proposing to use manufactured stone, and LP Smart Side, and there would be no PTAC (air conditioning) units located underneath the windows. Goellner stated that the applicant is proposing several architectural and landscaping features to help the building fit in with its surroundings including: pitched roofs similar to other homes in the neighborhood, articulation and relief in the walls of the building, several windows on all levels and all sides of the building, a variety of exterior building materials, fencing along the perimeter of the site, tree plantings along the perimeter of the site, minimal grading of the site, and a trash enclosure. She added that the applicant has also chosen to locate the parking lot and driveway access on the Lilac Drive side of the property in order to minimize the impact on Welcome Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 3 Goellner referred to the tree and landscape plan and stated that the applicant is proposing to remove all of the existing trees except for one and they are proposing fencing and tree plantings along the perimeter. She added that staff is recommending that coniferous trees be added along Welcome Avenue to provide year-round screening. She said staff is also proposing that the proposed fence be a decorative fence, and that shrubs/perennials be placed outside of the fence. Goellner referred to the proposed parking and access and stated that the proposed access is one driveway on Lilac Drive. She stated that the applicant is proposing to provide 19 parking stalls (five are required), and three bike parking spaces (four are required). She stated that deliveries should take place on the site, not on the street and should occur only between 8 am and 5 pm and that the applicant should provide an overflow parking plan. She stated that there is no parking allowed on Lilac Drive and on most of Golden Valley Road, there is also no overnight parking allowed on Welcome Avenue from November 1 to March 31, and there is no parking allowed after two inches of snow on any city street. Goellner referred to a chart showing the anticipated weekday and weekend time frames for employees and visitors. She noted that at most there would be 11 to 12 cars on a lot that can hold 19 so the applicant isn’t anticipating the lot to be full on an average day. Goellner noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on November 15. She stated that there were 12 attendees and that there were numerous concerns regarding traffic, parking, noise, odors, tree removal, construction, and the height and size of the building. She added that a lighting plan will be required with the building permit application and that there have been no comments or concerns from the Fire Department. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of all three proposals subject to the conditions listed in the staff reports. She explained that three of the evaluation criteria used when evaluating a Conditional Use Permit have specific conditions attached to them. They include ways to mitigate the effect on traffic flow and congestion by requiring an overflow parking plan, mitigating the possible increase in noise levels by requiring deliveries be limited to regular business hours, and mitigating the visual impacts by requiring dumpster screening, the installation of trees, shrubs and perennials, and the installation of a privacy fence. Segelbaum asked if there is a need to add a condition regarding the construction schedule and rules. Goellner stated that the City has construction regulations and that applicants are required to sign a construction management agreement that addresses issues such as the hours construction is allowed, noise, removing debris from the site, etc. Baker asked if these requirements are prescribed by ordinance or if they are negotiated between the builder and the City. Goellner stated that they are all ordinances and that the construction management agreement puts all the regulations in one document. Segelbaum referred to the tree and landscape plan and asked about the mitigation requirements. Goellner explained that the applicant is allowed to remove 30% of the trees Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 4 before they are required to add new ones. Baker asked if a condition could be added requiring a specific number of trees to be planted. Goellner said if it could be tied to the impact of the visual appearance then it would be appropriate. Blum asked for clarification regarding where staff is recommending more coniferous trees be planted. Goellner stated that the recommendation is to have more coniferous trees on the west side along Welcome Avenue since that is the side of the property that is most exposed to the single family neighborhood. Blum referred to the site plan and asked if it meets staff’s recommendations. Goellner said it does not and that the applicant has been asked to provide an updated tree and landscape plan. Angell asked if the intention is to have the trees planted on the exterior of the fence. Goeller said yes and explained that there would be shrubs, then the fence, then the trees, then the building to help with visual impact. Baker asked about the purpose of requiring a fence that is only four feet tall. Goellner said it won’t help with screening but it will provide visual appeal and variety. Pockl said she understands that if the factors of evaluation have been met for a Conditional Use Permit the City is obligated to approve it and asked if that is the same for the lot consolidation request. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if there is a requirement that the zoning of the property and the Land Use Map have to match. Goellner said yes, that is required. Nathan Running, Property Owner, stated that he was involved in building their facility in Fridley and that this whole process started for him five years ago when his grandfather was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and he had to find a place for him to live. He said the places he found were too institutional and he wanted to find a neighborhood community with a home feel. He said that is the concept for this proposed 25-unit facility. He stated that the demand for senior living in Golden Valley is high and that the proposed location fits all of their criteria. Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, stated that the busier/noisier part of the proposed facility would be on the Lilac Drive side of the property. That is where people, employees, and deliveries would come and go so he doesn’t see any reason for traffic to go through the neighborhood streets. He stated that a six foot tall fence and trees are proposed along the north side of the property to try and reduce the visual impact. He stated that the majority of the rooms will face into the neighborhood so they feel like they are part of the community. He stated that they will be replacing all of the trees with trees that are four inches or more in diameter and 12 feet tall or taller. He said they are also proposing to add seven ornamental trees. He noted that there are several other buildings in the area, some are larger and some are smaller than what they are proposing so when he looks at the overall neighborhood what they are proposing will fit in. He referred to the dumpster and said they will be enclosing it and planting shrubs around it. Segelbaum asked about the parking requirements if there is a special event. Ofsthun stated that the property owners have reached out to other property owners in the area regarding overflow parking. Jennifer Thorson, Director of the Fridley Watermark Facility, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 5 stated that their Fridley location has 28 units and 13 parking spots. The proposed Golden Valley facility will have 25 units and 19 parking spots. She noted that during the peak time in Fridley they have approximately 12 cars. She explained that during special events RSVP’ing is required so that they can properly plan for the parking. Johnson asked the applicant to talk about how they came to the final design of the building and what other options they considered. Ofsthun said they originally considered two plans. The first plan had the access on Golden Valley Road, but that got a little too close to the neighborhood. He stated that many of the decisions were dictated by the grade and trying to keep the entrance away from the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive. He said the shape and design of the building came from the number of units, the amenities, and trying to keep the height down to fit in with the neighborhood. Segelbaum asked if the building could have more units in the future if needed. Ofsthun said he doesn’t see that being an option and that there are no plans on expanding. Segelbaum questioned if this proposal might be an incremental step in getting more units. Ofsthun said the City Code and licensing wouldn’t allow it. Baker asked the applicant if they are planning on adding bike parking spaces. Ofsthun said yes. Pockl asked how often emergency vehicles are called to their site in Fridley. Thorson stated that emergency vehicles come to the site approximately three times per month. Blum asked if the sirens and lights are on when the emergency vehicles arrived. Thorson said the sirens are always off. Johnson noted that this is right off Highway 100 where sirens are heard all the time. Baker opened the public hearing. Gary Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Avenue North, showed the Commissioners a drawing he made that illustrates how tall the proposed building would be compared to the height of the houses nearby. He said he won’t be able to see the sky from the inside of his house and that the trees they are proposing will take 20 years to cover the main floor of the building. He said there is no comparison between the trees they are taking out and the trees they are proposing to put in. He said the building is going to look like a hotel and there is nothing equitable about this proposal. It will not fit in with the neighborhood, and is nothing like the other buildings on Golden Valley Road. Ryan Thomson, 1200 Welcome Avenue North, said he is concerned about the massing effect of the building. He said this proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood or the objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to preserve and promote single family residences in Golden Valley. He said it is unconscionable that the Planning Commission would undertake the approval of this proposal which inherently deviates from the objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by destroying detached single family residences. He said approval of this proposal would only prove to Golden Valley residents that the Comprehensive Plan is a political tool to remain in power rather than a strategy to maintain the best of their community. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 6 Mike Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, submitted a petition signed by 24 people opposing the proposal and read the statement on the petition. He referred to the possibility of expansion and noted that they are expanding their Fridley facility by an additional 18 units. He said it seems like the applicant is trying to hide that fact. He referred to the character of the neighborhood and said he loves his single family home and having a number of mature trees and that he is opposed to the lot consolidation. He said a huge part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was having a variety of single family home pricing. Taking out three lots does not fit with the 2040 Comp Plan because the City needs to have affordable single family homes within their neighborhood so that all types of people can move into the neighborhood at a reasonable price. He said another thing the 2040 Comp Plan talks about is the preservation of nature. He noted that the applicant is taking out all of the existing trees except for one and putting in smaller trees that take a long time to grow and that we can’t keep taking down mature trees. He said the proposed building fits within the R-1 requirements, but it completely towers over the neighborhood. He strongly recommended that the Planning Commission not recommend approval. Christine Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, said this is about the properties not being single family homes. She said this is a property that is for profit and they are not as invested as community owners. She stated that the FTK property behind her house at 1310 Welcome Avenue North has a dumpster that is frequently left open and trash blows into her yard. She said she has also seen them use a leaf blower to push trash into her yard. She said there is no consequences for the applicant, but the consequences are to her family when her puppy has a rubber glove or glass shard in its mouth. She said she has a question about where the dumpster will be placed with this proposal to make sure that it isn’t impacting families because there isn’t the level of care or concern that a family owner would have. She said this is a strong community and this proposal is breaking it up. Matt Bartholomew, 1240 Welcome Avenue North, said he is a real estate professional and it is his opinion that this proposed facility will likely have a negative impact particularly on the homes directly across the street. He said the wall and the highway noise are already major issues and that adding another big building is going to be another issue that anyone living in the area will face if they sell their home. He said there are multiple buildings in the area and he feels like they are getting squeezed in so he would like to see the properties stay single family homes. Pan Wandzel, 1220 Welcome Avenue North, said when she moved in the neighborhood was stable but also transitional. She said over the last five years their neighborhood has become tight, they get together frequently, and they watch out for each other. She said she is concerned about this proposal changing the integrity of this neighborhood. She said she is not against senior housing and that she wants to age in place. She said she wants to stay in a neighborhood that is safe and she doesn’t want to have to worry about parking or strangers walking down the street during their lunch break. She said she worries about the density and that the building looks like a hotel or a townhome in Plymouth or somewhere where there aren’t separate homes that have character and light between the buildings. She said she understands there is a need, but it doesn’t belong in their neighborhood and just because it’s called a residential facility it’s transitional. She Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 7 noted that the office building on Welcome Avenue has a covenant that states they will keep up with the landscaping, but they don’t because they got what they needed and the residents are the ones who are suffering. She reiterated that she isn’t against senior housing; she is for the integrity of the neighborhood. Richard Sheehan, 1533 Xenia Avenue North, asked if it was correct that staff said that if a business can meet the requirements for consolidating lots that the City must approve the application. Goellner said yes. Sheehan asked if it follows then that if the permit is issued any application to do anything is automatically going to be approved. He said he thinks there is an assumption that this proposal is going to happen and it is just a matter of working through the nuts and bolts but he thinks there should be discussion about whether the proposed facility should be there at all. He said he has the same concerns as the previous speakers. He wants to see younger people move in the neighborhood and these properties could be single family homes. He said he finds it disturbing that the very nice house at 1530 Welcome Avenue is going to be torn down and questioned why the City should be in the business of tearing down existing perfectly good structures so that something else can be done with it. He said he wants to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and he wants to see single family homes on the two lots on the Welcome Avenue side and not a health care facility. He implored the Commission to think about the character of the neighborhood. Grace Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, referred to the comment about emergency vehicles not using their sirens when they are going into the site and said there will have to be sirens when they are leaving the site. She said having sirens three times a month is not something any of the Planning Commissioners would want in their neighborhoods and it’s not something any of them want in their neighborhood either. She said she doesn’t want to worry about strangers in her neighborhood and that it is nice to know she has a community that supports her and people in the neighborhood that know her. She said she doesn’t think that this proposed facility would be good for them because they don’t know who will be in the neighborhood, who they can trust, and who they think is safe. She said the Commission has to think about if they are taking the neighbor out of neighborhoods. Pam Wittucki, 1136 Welcome Circle, said that the applicant mentioned that they don’t use lights and sirens at their facility but she knows that if it is an emergency they will use lights and sirens, there will be a lot of lights and sirens and saying there won’t be is a stretch. She said that people who have memory issues, and have transitional care and elder care probably aren’t driving so they are going to need people to get them places. She said there are already a lot of commercial buildings in the area, she understands that but she doesn’t want any more coming in and closer. She said this isn’t a good fit for their neighborhood and people are going to park on their street. Marilyn Miller, 1316 Welcome Avenue North, requested that the Planning Commission uphold the Comprehensive Plan. She said the other nursing home in the area fits in because it is only one story and it doesn’t overlook the neighbors’ backyards. She said if the applicants were concerned about the neighbors they would have kept up the land and not let the grass grow three feet tall so she questions their integrity. She said that they have already asked for an expansion at their Fridley facility so it is a real possibility that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 8 they will ask for that in Golden Valley too. She asked how many of the parking spaces are attributed to deliveries and stated that the grill will produce a smell. Peter Lane, 5630 Golden Valley Road, said they moved to Golden Valley from St. Paul and he grew up in a small suburb in Duluth. He said this feels like home because there isn’t a lot of huge commercial buildings and there is a lot of nature, trees, and wildlife. He said he didn’t know the names of his neighbors in St. Paul and he knew his neighbors here within a couple of weeks. He said he’s worked hard on landscaping and keeping up their house and that no one is besmirching bringing in elder care, but he believes Golden Valley is looking to bring in more young families so these homes really need to be protected. Chris Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, said he wants to raise his kids here and Golden Valley is a community and he wants to stay here forever. He said he thinks they all want to find value in their home and that a transitional home is not good for them or their community. Stephen Trull, 1600 Welcome Avenue North, said he was told that the distance from fence along the north to the property line was 25 feet and that the peak of the roof on the north end of the building would be 35 feet tall. He said to put that in perspective he is six feet tall so 25 feet away from the fence, and up 35 feet would be six times his height or about 5 houses tall so the pictures shown don’t really give the scale of the enormity of the proposed building. He said the building is going to block the sun and take away from the small, livable, presentable nature of this neighborhood. He said he knows the house at 1530 Welcome was sold for $500,000 so he is concerned about the effect of that on his property taxes and that it might price him out of the neighborhood. Millie Segal, 4409 Sunset Ridge, said she is attempting to age in place in Golden Valley. She said this can happen in any neighborhood and it is upsetting to her to hear that these neighbors’ way of life is in jeopardy. She said there are other facilities with vacancies that are very nice and are in appropriate areas and not disrupting neighborhoods. Georgeann Wobschall, 1503 Welcome Avenue North, said she has looked at this property for 40 plus years. She said since the owners of 1530 Welcome Avenue have moved out there have been papers on the property, weeds in the cement, the grass has not been mowed, and the mail is not picked up. She said she is not sure who is responsible for the upkeep of this property but as the Planning Commission considers this proposal they should think about what Watermark has done with the property in the last six months. Gary Remick, 1114 Welcome Circle, said he is a dog owner and avid walker and there is no sidewalk on the south side of the street so he has to walk right against the highway wall. He said he is concerned about this facility and how it will affect his dog’s enjoyment of the neighborhood. He said a lot of people walk in this neighborhood and he is worried about their safety. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 9 Celeste Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, said her husband passed away in their home unexpectedly two years ago and there were sirens, ambulances, and police cars. She said her neighbors helped her through that ordeal and every day that she hears an ambulance or a police car brings her back to that day. She said to add more traffic and to take away from the neighborhood and to take away from what should be single family homes like in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan saddens her. She said this is a small little community outside a larger community and her family and friends are grateful she has the neighbors she has. She implored the Planning Commission to keep this area as a single family neighborhood and not approve this proposal. She said eventually this neighborhood will be gone and Golden Valley won’t be a residential area anymore, it is going to be industrial and overtake them. Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, said they are surrounded on all sides by industry and therefore they are a fragile neighborhood and have had to remain vigilant. She said she thinks rezoning the commercial property to R-1 single family residential would be acceptable, but what is not acceptable is combining the lots. She stated that in the R-1 district there are no restrictions on the number of people who can live in a house if they are all related, five people if they are unrelated. So by combining the three lots into one there could be one family so what they are really asking for is a Conditional Use Permit for 20 additional people. She noted that many of the lots in the neighborhood are actually not that much smaller than the subject properties combined. She said it appears that the only way this building was going to be built was to shoehorn it in this space with a Conditional Use Permit on top of that. She said if the commercial lot is rezoned to R-1 it should not be combined with the other two lots. Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the applicant, said he would like to make a few comments. Baker said he couldn’t let Mr. Coyle respond to the public comments and that the Planning Commission would let the applicant come back up and speak if they have additional questions. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Baker referred to the rezoning of the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road and noted that staff is recommending approval of rezoning the property to R-1 Single Family Residential because that is how it is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the two should be consistent with each other. He added that there were a number of people who said that this proposal departs from the Comprehensive Plan but he feels those comments pertain more to the CUP request than the rezoning proposal. The Commissioners agreed. Blum asked if there is a timeline as to when the Comprehensive Plan designation and the Zoning Map designation have to match. Zimmerman said the zoning has to be consistent with the Comp Plan within nine months of a Comp Plan amendment so this really should have been rezoned 10 years ago when the last Comp Plan was adopted. Baker asked if there are a lot of properties that weren’t rezoned with the last Comp Plan update. Zimmerman said there are several properties that will need to be rezoned after the 2040 Comp Plan update is adopted. Segelbaum said he has some hesitancy in rezoning this Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 10 property because the Planning Commission and the City Council has had discussions about maintaining small commercial properties for things like coffee shops which make neighborhoods more walkable. However R-1 does fit here and the Comp Plan guides it for residential so rezoning it seems appropriate. Baker asked about the history of the uses on this property. Zimmerman said it has been used as a number of things including a gas station/convenience store and a Montessori school. He added that most of the past uses occurred before Highway 100 cut off access and Golden Valley Road went through. Baker said he wishes there were small commercial uses in his neighborhood but that this neighborhood already has some commercial uses nearby. Johnson stated that the setbacks for this property wouldn’t allow for a decent size commercial or office use. Zimmerman agreed. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to Single Family Residential (R-1). Baker referred to the proposed lot consolidation and read the staff’s recommended conditions. He reminded the Commission that the City is bound by the nine factors of consideration found in City Code which in this case have been met or are not applicable. Pockl asked if the factors are the same for lot consolidations as they are for minor subdivisions. Zimmerman stated that the Zoning Code refers to platting which is the redrawing of any property lines and that the process and conditions of consideration are the same. Goellner reviewed the nine factors of consideration and explained how this proposal meets those requirements. MOVED by Brookins seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed lot consolidation at 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome 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 $15,180 shall be paid before release of the final plat. 3. The proposed development is adjacent to State Highway 100 and therefore is subject to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Baker referred to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) proposal and asked staff to review the evaluation criteria used when reviewing a CUP application. Goellner listed all of the criteria from the Zoning Code and summarized how the proposal meets, or conditionally meets, each one. She discussed the conditions recommended by staff including the mitigation of traffic flow and impact, the mitigation of increase in noise levels, and the mitigation of the visual appearance. Johnson referred to the mitigation of increase in noise levels and asked how they address the comments made about emergency vehicle siren noise. Segelbaum stated that the issue is if the noise is excessive and if it is able to be mitigated. Baker agreed that the City has to demonstrate that there is no way to mitigate an issue raised under the criteria Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 11 used in order to deny a CUP proposal. Goellner said there is a possibility that there would be more emergency vehicles at this proposed 25-unit facility when compared to a 6-unit facility which would be a permitted use. Blum asked what the applicant can do by right. Goellner said they could have a 6-unit residential facility on each lot. Blum stated that they should be comparing the potential noise of emergency vehicles for 18 people versus 25 people. Baker said he thinks there are ways to beef up the conditions staff has recommended, or to add conditions that will help address some of the concerns. Johnson referred to the condition that requires MnDOT’s review and said he doesn’t remember requiring that with other proposals. Zimmerman stated that staff always sends the plans to the County or the State if a proposal is adjacent to their roads. Pockl referred to comments regarding property values and asked who determines if there would be an impact on property values and what that decision is based on. Goellner said the County assessor determines property values and they would need very compelling evidence that property values would be diminished by this proposal. She added that in many cases new development increases property values rather than diminishing them. Zimmerman agreed and said the assessors didn’t see any evidence of significant impact in this case. Baker said he thinks it would be hard to argue that the residential property to the north of the proposed building wouldn’t be impacted. Goellner said she could follow up with the assessor and get more information. Blum referred to the first criteria of consideration regarding the demonstrated need for the proposed use and noted that staff’s finding cited a housing study done in 2016 which showed a demand for 80-100 units of assisted living at 100-120 units of memory care units. He asked how many of units have been filled since that study. Goellner said there have been zero units added. Blum asked about the recently approved facility to be built on Douglas Drive. Goellner said that facility is approximately six units of transitional housing and more medical in nature. Zimmerman said there is another building under construction along I-394 that will have 90 units of assisted living and memory care. Baker said he has to believe that the people proposing the project wouldn’t be doing so if there wasn’t a need. Blum stated there is also the J-HAP facility and that he thinks there needs to be an accounting for this particular finding. Goellner said the J-HAP facility was accounted for in the housing study and also anything under construction or approved at the time. She added that vacancies were also analyzed and that she could review the report and let the Commissioners know the vacancy rates in 2016 and which buildings were counted. Segelbaum referred to the proposed height of the building and asked if it is in excess of what is allowed. Zimmerman said no. Baker added that 28 feet of height is allowed and the proposed building would be 24 feet tall. Johnson asked about the lighting plan. Zimmerman explained that the applicant will have to follow the same requirements as any other R-1 property. Segelbaum asked the applicant to discuss the concerns about sirens. Coyle said it would be the same as any other single family residence and that Public Safety staff decides Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 12 when they use lights and sirens. He added that neither the applicant nor the Planning Commission is in the position to regulate that so they would defer to what the City decides. Segelbaum asked Coyle if in his experience it is common that sirens are used when approaching or leaving a facility. Coyle said if the situation dictates the use of lights and sirens then they will be used. He stated that the policy of the facility is to call the family first to determine if they want the resident to go to the hospital and that the facility has medical staff on site and if the judgement is that there is not an emergency then lights and sirens wouldn’t be used. Thorson added that they have yet to have an emergency happen at their Fridley facility. She reiterated that on average they have had approximately three ambulances come to the site monthly in order to pick up a resident and bring them to the hospital. Rocky DiGiacomo, Partner in the Watermark facility, said he feels strongly that a certain voice is not being represented at this meeting and that is the elderly themselves. He referred to the housing study done in 2016 and stated that over the past four decades Golden Valley’s population level has remained relatively flat and is not expected to change much going forward with one major exception, people aged 65 and older. That demographic is expected to go up by 54% by 2021. He stated that from planning to reality these types of projects take approximately three years and that the City hasn’t done much to address this major demographic change. He said he is hoping to run a profitable facility and also a caring facility that addresses the issues. He said the elderly can’t always advocate for themselves and hopes the people in attendance will take that into account. Baker asked the applicant about the evidence they have showing that they won’t increase the size of this proposed facility like they have done with their Fridley facility. Running, said their application is for 25 units and that is what they are proposing to build. He said in Fridley they went through the same process and the opportunity came up to buy additional property so they went through the same process again to expand. He said he can’t say that they will never want to expand this proposed facility in Golden Valley in the future, but there are no plans to do so. DiGiacomo stated that they have already shrunk the size of the proposed building to have 25 units and that all of the other space in the building not being used for rooms is being used for some other function such as food preparation, staff space, etc. and there is no way the rooms could be used for more than one person. Pockl asked if the current proposed building is the same size as previously proposed just with fewer rooms, or if the building is smaller than the previous proposal. DeGiacomo said the current proposed building is smaller than in their previous proposal. Baker went through each of the factors and findings used when considering CUPs and noted that the first factor is the demonstrated need for the proposed use. Blum reiterated that he wants to know how many units of assisted living and memory care have been added since the housing study was done so that he can clearly understand how the applicant has demonstrated the need for the proposed use. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 13 Baker said the next factor of consideration is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan does place a priority on a variety of housing types including housing for seniors so in his view this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Segelbaum said he thinks the question posed is if eliminating single family homes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Blum stated that a reasonable person could argue either way that the proposal either adds to the diversity or that maintaining single family homes preserves existing housing so he doesn’t think that finding can be used to justify denial of the proposal. He suggested looking at transportation, neighborhood character, greenery/nature, and the impact of different juxtaposed zoning uses which are also parts of the Comprehensive Plan, are important to their decision, and address the comments and questions from the public. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan talks about multi-modal transportation and if there is increased traffic from the proposed 25-unit facility it cuts against this factor of the Comprehensive Plan because it has an effect on walkability. Although the streets can more than handle the trips that are proposed for this particular use and since the entrance is on the edge of the neighborhood it doesn’t seem to affect the walkability as much so he doesn’t think the application can be denied based on this factor. Baker asked if there is a proposal to add sidewalk on the Welcome Avenue side of the site. Goellner stated that the bike and pedestrian task force decided not to add sidewalks to most residential streets unless a road is scheduled for reconstruction. She said requiring a sidewalk should only be a condition if it is noted in the Comprehensive Plan and it is not in this case. Zimmerman added that there are sidewalks on Golden Valley Road and on Lilac Drive. He noted that there are also no exits from the building on the Welcome Avenue side of the property so that is another reason not to add a sidewalk along Welcome Avenue. Blum referred to the issue of neighborhood character including height and blockage of the sun. He said it struck him how low the lot is and how tall the building might be and how that would interact with the landscaping. He said the building won’t be covered by any of landscaping at all. He added that the applicant didn’t add any evergreens to their site plans as staff has suggested, and that nothing has been done to protect the transition of different uses so he doesn’t think that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Baker agreed that the use of trees especially along the Welcome Avenue side is uncreative and inadequate and is not screening the large mass from the neighborhood. Segelbaum said that should be addressed under the tenth factor which is visual appearance. Johnson said he understands what Blum is saying, but there are rules which say that this facility is allowed. He stated that a person could build a monstrous single family home that wouldn’t fit in with the neighborhood character either. He said there probably isn’t any area where this facility would fit in exactly with the neighborhood. Baker said they have to keep in mind that when they recommend approval of CUPs they do so on the condition of mitigating the ability to address the factors of considerations. Angell said there is a lot of mention of preserving single family homes in the 2040 Comp Plan and that the same language is in the 2030 Comp Plan. Since the 2040 Comp Plan hasn’t officially been adopted yet, they should be basing their recommendation on the 2030 Comp Plan. Goellner agreed that preserving single family homes is a big Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 14 component of the 2030 Comp Plan. She stated that in the staff report to Council she is going to highlight that these properties are guided for low density residential and that is what this proposal is for. Zimmerman added that the Comp Plan goal is not to preserve single family homes it is to preserve single family neighborhoods which is a little larger in scope than individual homes and individual lots. Blum asked if there is specific language in the 2030 Comp Plan about preserving rambler style homes. Zimmerman said there might be some language regarding ramblers in the property maintenance parts of the Comp Plan but he doesn’t remember language regarding preserving ramblers as a housing type. Segelbaum said he thinks the major components of this decision are based on the itemized criteria. He said this is a change in three properties and the question is whether a nursing facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Blum said there is a lot to be said about the value of greenery and the differences in aesthetics and environmental issues. He said he thinks the green aesthetic is something they want to preserve and to basically take out everything except one tree and replace it with something inadequate is inconsistent with the Comp Plan and the theme of wanting to keep a green aesthetic. Baker asked the Commissioners if they had any comments about factor number three regarding the effect on property values. Blum said he doesn’t think they can accurately say that there is no evidence that property values would be either positively or negatively affected so that finding should be reworded. He said testimony is evidence and it is worth considering the comments they’ve heard about the property not being well maintained and that those comments are material to their decision and should be considered. Pockl agreed. Baker referred to factor number four which is the effect of traffic flow and congestion and asked the Commissioners for their thoughts. He said he believes that the fact that the access is off of Lilac Drive is a great mitigating approach to this factor and there is no reason to believe the neighborhood would be affected by the traffic created by the proposed facility. Segelbaum said if the public were to park on Welcome Avenue that might affect the traffic flow on that street and he doesn’t know how to mitigate that, but it will need to be monitored. Baker said he thinks it is mitigated by requiring the applicant to submit an overflow parking plan. He suggested that the finding regarding the submission of an overflow parking plan for special events be amended to read that a plan for overflow parking should be submitted. Segelbaum agreed. Blum said he thinks that is reasonable and asked if residents could apply for permit only parking on Welcome Avenue. Zimmerman said residents are able to apply for permit only parking if they wish. Baker referred to the fifth factor of consideration regarding the effect of increases in population and density. He said he thought he heard the applicant state that the residents of this proposed facility are not going to be walking around the neighborhood so he doesn’t see that there would be an effect on the population or density. Segelbaum asked about the density limit in this location. Zimmerman said the Zoning Codes states that the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet for one unit and that it also allows for 25 people so Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 15 there is not an exact comparison between the number of units and the number of people allowed. Baker said there will be 10 staff members and the neighborhood might not like staff walking around the neighborhood but it might be something they would have to get used to. He questioned if a condition could be placed on the approval that the staff would have to stay on the property during their breaks. Blum said he would be against that and he thinks this particular factor of consideration has been met. Baker referred to the sixth factor of consideration which is compliance with the City’s Mixed-Income Housing Policy and noted that this proposal is exempt from the policy. Baker referred to seventh factor of consideration which is the increase in noise level and said he thinks the staff’s finding stating that deliveries shall only take place between 8 am and 5 pm on weekdays and weekends is a common sense approach. He added that they’ve already discussed the siren issue so he is satisfied with the finding. Segelbaum said he has a concern about sirens increasing the noise level and he doesn’t know for certain what the increase will be but he doesn’t think it can be mitigated. Johnson said by right there could be three residential care facilities in this location serving 6 or fewer people each without the need for a CUP. Segelbaum said that is a fair way of looking at it, but it seems this proposal will increase the noise level and it concerns him and it should be analyzed further. Zimmerman noted that the standard isn’t that there be no net increase in noise, it is if the increase is reasonable and what could be done to mitigate it to the extent that the City feels comfortable with approval. Johnson noted that this neighborhood is also right next to Highway 100 so there already is noise in the area. Baker referred to the eighth factor of consideration which is the Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration. Johnson referred to the comment made about the grill and the kitchen. He said the kitchen is on the ground floor facing the parking lot. Baker said they could consider adding a condition stating that the venting be directed away from the neighborhood. Zimmerman said the area is called a grill, but it is not an industrial kitchen and they won’t be cooking or preparing food any differently than any other single family home in the area. Baker referred to the ninth factor of consideration regarding an increase in pests or vermin. The Commissioners had no comments about this factor. Baker referred to the tenth factor of consideration regarding visual appearance. He noted that staff proposed several conditions regarding the visual appearance but he would like to address the height, the dumpster, the landscaping, and the fencing. He said he would like a condition added requiring that the dumpster be placed in the parking lot and screened in order to address the neighbors’ concerns. He reiterated that he would like bigger trees and many more trees added to the landscape plan so there is an immediate effect of screening and a relief to the neighborhood. Zimmerman said he understands, but if too many trees are put in a small area they may get crowded out and die and that slightly smaller trees grow faster and taller than larger trees. He suggested the details of the trees get worked out with the City Forester. The Commissioners agreed. Blum stated that staff’s suggestion of year-round visual screening was not taken by the applicant and that the applicant has not met the visual appearance standards. Zimmerman explained Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 16 that the applicant was given staff’s suggestion at the neighborhood meeting so they didn’t ignore staff’s advice, they just haven’t submitted new landscaping plans yet. Brookins referred to the proposed fence and asked if a six foot tall fence would be allowed around the perimeter of the site. Zimmerman said there can be a six foot tall fence along the north side of the property. He stated that the applicant could apply for a variance to allow for a six foot tall fence along the other property lines, but staff can’t require them to do that. Blum stated that the Planning Commission has looked at structures like this in the past and he thinks that the proposed articulation, the windows, the varying peak heights, and the varying colors are important and positive aspects of this proposal. Baker agreed. Pockl said she doesn’t think the visual appearance factor is satisfied. She said she thinks the building looks like a nice residential structure but the monstrosity of it doesn’t fit within the character of the neighborhood and impacts the visual appearance as it sits within the neighborhood. She said her opinion is that the factor can’t be satisfied if it doesn’t look like the rest of the neighborhood character which is rambler style residential homes. Blum agreed that the massing is an issue. Segelbaum noted that by right they are able to build this size of building. Zimmerman agreed and reiterated that the proposal meets all of the setback and height requirements and that the Zoning Code allows this type of structure. Pockl stated that if a factor of consideration is that it has to be designed to complement the character of the surrounding neighborhood then she doesn’t think the proposal meets that factor. If the building only has to meet the R-1 Zoning requirements then she thinks it would satisfy the visual appearance factor. Blum said he thinks the building can technically meet the R-1 Zoning requirements, but that doesn’t mean it meets the character of the neighborhood factor as proposed. Zimmerman noted that the Code language specifically states the finding as “visual appearance of any proposed structure or use” so there is nothing tying it to neighborhood character and the Planning Commission and City Council evaluates proposals through that lens. Blum compared this proposal to a proposal by the same applicant on Douglas Drive. He stated that the Douglas Drive property is narrow and that from the front the structure looks very similar to other single family homes in the area, whereas the visual appearance of this proposal is substantially larger than any single family structure in the area on at least two sides of the property. Baker questioned if the applicant could come back with a proposal for the same number of units in two smaller buildings rather than one massive building. Brookins said this proposal is a better representation of the character of the neighborhood versus some type of row housing. He said everyone has different preferences on design and they should be looking at ways to provide conditions to help mitigate the visual impact without redesigned the building. Segelbaum asked if there is consensus about the proposed conditions. Baker said he would like condition number five regarding landscaping to be more effective at screening the building from the neighborhood. Zimmerman suggested adding language stating that the applicant should work with the City Forester to come up with the best landscaping Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 17 plan. Baker suggested adding a sentence stating that the goal of the condition is to provide immediate and long term screening from the neighborhood to the west. Johnson stated that a condition should be added about putting the dumpster location on the plans. Segelbaum questioned how to the address the concern about trash blowing around. Zimmerman said that would be a property maintenance issue. Baker said he would like to recommend that the applicant apply for a variance to allow for a six foot tall fence to be placed along the perimeter of the property and that venting of kitchen odors be done in such a way to minimize impacts to the neighborhood to the west and north. MOVED by Baker seconded by Johnson and motion carried 4 to 2 to 1 to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 162 allowing for a Residential Facility serving up to 25 persons at 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North, subject to the findings discussed and conditions as follows. Commissioners Blum and Pockl voted no. Commissioner Segelbaum abstained and stated that he had incomplete information about the potential increase in noise due to sirens and without that information it was unclear to him if the impact could be mitigated. Conditions 1. The Residential Facility may serve up to 25 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. An overflow parking plan must be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The exterior dumpster shall be placed in the parking lot and screened with an enclosure constructed of material compatible with the building. 5. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of coniferous trees between the proposed building and Welcome Avenue is required. The goal of this condition is to provide immediate and long term screening for the neighborhood to the west and north. 6. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of shrub and perennial plantings between the proposed fence and the adjacent streets (Welcome Avenue and Golden Valley Road) is required. 7. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of a decorative fence along the perimeter of the property is required. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 5. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision – 4400 Sunset Ridge – SU09-15 Applicant: STR8 Modern Properties, LLC Address: 4400 Sunset Ridge Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 18 Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lots into two new single family residential lots Zimmerman referred to location map and aerial photo of the property and explained the applicant’s proposal to subdivide one existing single family residential lot into two lots. He stated that the existing lot is 38,384 square feet in size. Proposed lot one to the west would be 16,112 square feet in size, 97.3 feet wide and the front setback, and 80 feet wide 70 feet into the lot. Proposed lot two to the east would be 22,272 square feet in size, 110.4 feet wide at the front setback, and 126.8 feet wide 70 feet into the lot. He added that all dimensional requirements have been met. Zimmerman referred to a survey of the property and showed how the new property line would be drawn dividing the lot into two and the proposed building envelope on each lot. Zimmerman stated that the property is in compliance with the City’s inflow and infiltration requirements, a tree survey has been completed, a park dedication fee of $10,800 is due prior to release of the final plat, and a slope stability analysis has been requested by the City Engineer. He added that individual plans and permits would be reviewed and issued at the time of construction. Zimmerman reviewed the nine conditions for approval or denial and stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed subdivision subject to conditions listed in the staff report in addition to the review of the slope stability analysis. Baker asked if the property could be subdivided whether it is buildable or not. Zimmerman said no, if the property is not buildable due to steep slopes or excessive wetness the property would not be able to be subdivided because the City does not want to create lots that are not buildable. Tony Videen, Applicant, said the intent in purchasing the property was to renovate the house but he did not feel it was a property he could save because of the value and what it would cost to renovate it. He stated that more than likely the slope stability analysis will show that the lot will be buildable it is just to what degree and expense. He said he agreed with staff that he doesn’t want to split the property if it is not buildable. Baker opened the public hearing. Brian Beutner, 810 Westwood Drive, asked if any drainage studies have been done showing what will happen to the neighboring properties if this property is subdivided. He said it seems premature to make a recommendation about subdividing this property until the consequences are known. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing Zimmerman stated that the Engineering staff will review the grading and stormwater runoff issues. He said typically as much water as possible is captured and focused toward the street and into the stormwater sewer system. He added that there are also rules about Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 19 not increasing the amount of runoff onto neighboring properties, or directing runoff where it didn’t go before. Segelbaum said the proposal seems to meet the criteria used when reviewing subdivisions. Pockl asked if there is a way to condition the subdivision to ensure that any drainage issues are addressed or resolved. Zimmerman stated that the stormwater management permits issued at the time of construction would address the issues. He added that it is hard to determine the issues at this stage without house plans and that this process is about splitting the land versus construction so it is unusual to place that type of condition on the subdivision. MOVED by Segelbaum seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the minor subdivision at 4400 Sunset Ridge 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 $10,800 shall be paid before release of the final plat. 3. A slope stability analysis of Lot 2 shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer. 4. Continued Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit Amendment – 800 Boone Avenue North – CU-119, Amendment #3 Applicant: Home Health Care, Inc. Address: 800 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To explore possible modifications to the current Conditional Use Permit in regard to social events being held at the facility. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that this is a continued item regarding social events being held at 800 Boone Avenue North. He explained that there is a condition in the applicant’s Conditional Use Permit that allows for occasional evening social functions and that over the past year there have been issues with parties and noise. He stated that based on complaints the City Council revoked the Conditional Use Permit and then stayed that revocation and referred the matter to the Planning Commission to review the issues and try to work out a solution to allow the adult daycare to continue while addressing the other issues. He stated that on October 8, the Planning Commission decided to hold a public hearing and consider amendments to the Conditional Use Permit. A public hearing was held on October 22 and was continued to this meeting. This item is now scheduled for City Council action on December 18 to either amend the Conditional Use Permit or to finalize the revocation. Zimmerman stated that at the October 22 Planning Commission meeting the Commission considered allowing limited informational/marketing events to be held in the evenings and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 20 on weekends. However, it was hard to get agreement on what that meant and how it would be enforced. He stated that after speaking with the applicant and the City Attorney, staff is now recommending that no adult day care activities be allowed after 5:30 pm and that any other activities that happen at the site will have to follow all the rules in City Code like any business in Golden Valley would. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit would remain in effect and any violations could cause revocation in the future. He discussed some of the other issues/concerns related to this site including: the removal of trees in the Shoreland Overlay area along Bassett Creek in order to clear space for community gardens and a paved area with benches, Fire Code issues in regard to parking along the driveway to the south of the building, and buses parking on Boone Avenue which may restrict the sight lines from the existing driveways. He stated that staff is continuing to work with the applicant regarding these issues. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment with some amended conditions. Brookins referred to proposed condition number five regarding parking the buses in the parking lot and asked if loading and unloading would still occur in front of the building. Zimmerman said the condition was written specifically to address the concern of the buses being parked on the street for long periods of time and not the loading and unloading of their clients but that could also be added as a condition of approval if the Planning Commission wants that to be considered. Johnson asked if staff reviewed the definition of a bus. Zimmerman said he did look into it but feels that in this case a reasonable person would agree that is what is being parked on the street. Segelbaum said he would call the applicant’s vehicles vans or passenger vans. Zimmerman said the language can be amended to encompass buses, mini-buses, vans, etc. Brookins asked if there is any reason the loading and unloading can’t occur in the parking lot. Randall Strand, Applicant’s Attorney, stated that many of the clients are in wheelchairs and because of the condition of the parking lot it is somewhat more dangerous to take them over the rougher terrain rather than using the sidewalk in front of the building. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum said he appreciates the simplification of the conditions and supports this proposal. Brookins said he would like to see loading and unloading occur on the site itself and not in the public right-of-way because of sight line and safety issues. Zimmerman added that sometimes buses park on the west side of Boone Avenue and that people have to go across the street to get to the site. Brookins suggested that condition number five be amended to state that all buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot. MOVED by Blum seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #119, Amendment #3 subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 21 Findings 1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use: Standard met. DRAM Properties has demonstrated that there is a need for adult day care by successfully operating two facilities in Golden Valley. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Standard met. The Future Land Use Map guides the site for long-term light industrial use. Adult day care centers, through a conditional use permit, are consistent with that land use designation. 3. Effect upon Property Values: Standard met. The approval of the amended permit will not negatively impact property values in the area. 4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion: Standard conditionally met. Clients utilizing the daycare generally arrive via van or bus, reducing the number of individual trips made to and from the facility. However, the current parking locations for the vans and buses on Boone Avenue and in the entrance drive pose problems to public safety and will need to be relocated. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: Standard met. The use does not significantly increase the general population of the area, though the adult day care business does temporarily impact the daytime population. 6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed-Income Housing Policy: Not applicable. 7. Increase in Noise Levels: Standard conditionally met. Minimum noise is generated by the vans and buses transporting clients. Past complaints of noise generated by large events and evening and nighttime use of the property will be mitigated by the conditions of the amended permit. 8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration: Standard met. No such problems are expected. 9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin: Standard met. No such problems are expected. 10. Visual Appearance: Standard met. The exterior of the building will not be affected by the amended permit. 11. Other Effects upon the General Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: Standard conditionally met. Impacts to the City and its residents, in the form of complaints and repeated police calls to the property, are anticipated to be reduced under the amended permit. Conditions 1. The adult day care shall be limited to the number of clients specified by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current. 3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm, Monday thru Friday. 4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted in the Zoning Code. 5. All vans and buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot and shall not be loaded, unloaded, or parked on Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south of the building along the drive aisle. 6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on-site without first obtaining the proper license or permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2018 Page 22 7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable to the Physical Development Department. 8. The applicant shall provide an on-site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of five bicycles. 9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall become a part of these requirements. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 7. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Amendments —ZO00-118 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider ways to update and modernize the uses allowed in the Business and Professional Office Zoning District This item was tabled to the December 10, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. --Short Recess-- 8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No meetings were discussed. 9. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 pm. r �" , � � Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant