The URL can be used to link to this page

06-24-19 PC Agenda 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 ` '. °r�.,} . � 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov ��f ��Q� � � • • • �./ V (��i� Plann�n Commiss�on � g �. June 24, 2019—7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING AGENDA GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Valiey Road 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes June 10, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 4. Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit#169 Applicant: LSHLC Golden Valley Adult Day Program Address: 2300 Nevada Ave N, Suite#300 Purpose: Adult Day Care in the Industrial Zoning District 5. Discussion—Mixed Use Zoning District --Short Recess-- 6. Council Liaison Report 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette, etc. 7800 Golden Vailey Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � .1 +�. ��.�. � 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov �` ��Qq/� d,. l! j�� 1� Plannin Commission �' � g .,� June 10,2019—7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was calied to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum. Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall ��, .� �� Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Brookins to approve the agenda of June 10, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Johnson to approve the May 29, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Good Shepherd School Address: 145 Jersey Avenue South Purpose: Child Care Center in the Institutional (I-1) Zoning District Goellner referred to a location map and explained the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Child Care Center (preschool)for up to 20 children. She stated that the applicant plans to remodel an existing classroom to use for a preschool that will be licensed as a Child Care Center by MN Department of Human Services. She added that there are no exterior changes planned and the proposed Child Care Center would share parking spaces with the church and school. She referred to an aerial photo of the property and discussed the points of entry and exit to the site and the pickup and drop off location for the students. Goellner stated that Good Shepherd church and school are 59,101 square feet in size on an 8.9 acre site surrounded by residential and institutional uses and that the school includes 15 classrooms for grades K through 6. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. C:ity of Gc�lc�en Vall�y Plar�ning Camrnissic�r� Reguiar lVf�eting 2 June 1Q, 2019 Goellner discussed the parking requirements for this site and explained that the Child Care Center requires four parking spaces. She stated that the entire site currently has 263 parking spaces and that they are required to have 284. However,the Zoning Code allows for a reduction in parking when uses are shared or operate on different days or at different times which is the case with this proposal so staff is comfortable with the number of parking spaces on the site at this time. Goellner discussed other zoning considerations and stated that the school currently has 27 employees, the church has 7 employees, and an additional 2 or 3 employees would be added for the Child Care Center. She added that there are currently 265 students and that the child care hours would be 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday. She referred to drop offs and pickups and said they would occur at the east entrance and queue in the L-shaped parked lot with no overflow into the streets, and that no deliveries would be made during this time. Goellner added that there is a feasibility analysis and master planning underway for future expansion and if that occurs a CUP Amendment would be required. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit as it meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Code. Baker questioned if there is a permitted maximum number of students allowed at the school. Goellner said there would be a permitted maximum number of students allowed as defined by the Building Code. Baker asked if the physical capacity and permitted capacity would be the same. Goellner said there could be a slight difference between the two. Zimmerman referred to the architectural plans and noted that the educational occupancy is limited to 704 occupants. Baker said he was thinking about the implications to the parking. Goellner explained that for parking regulations staff used the occupant loads that were noted on the site plans. Johnson asked if the parking needs to be formally reevaluated. Goellner said staff is happy to accept input about parking but doesn't feel that a parking study is needed at this point. If the applicant were to come back in the future with plans to expand staff would likely ask for a parking study then. Johnson referred to the floor plans that specifically call out the rooms being used and asked if that information was required with the application or if that was above and beyond. Goellner said the City requires an interior floor plan but that the plans submitted were more detailed than what the Planning Commission typically reviews. Blum said he sees several positive things in this application including the independent licensing through another government agency because it gives him reassurance in regards to appropriate capacity. He said the L-shaped parking lot is particularly conducive toward managing traffic flows, and there have been no complaints about the present uses which are very similar to what is proposed. He said the proposed parking allowance is consistent with past decisions in terms of the quantity and the rationale for the uses which is that they are uses at different times and days of the week at the same facility and he is glad to see a proposed condition about future expansion of the use. City of C;oft�en �alEey Planning Commi�sion Reguiar Meeting 3 lune 10, 2019 Mike McGinty, Principal of Good Shepherd School, said that for many years their enrollment has been approximately 330 kids and that has been declining by 10 to 15 per year for the last five years so even with the addition of the proposed preschool they will be well below what they have had for many years. He said the proposed preschool is needed and healthy, and parents have been asking for it for a long time. Baker asked if the addition of the preschool would bring enrollment back. McGinty said they think it might help maintain enrollment where it is at. Blum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment Blum closed the public hearing. Baker said he thinks it is a quirk of the Institutional Zoning Districts that schools are a by-right use but preschools are not. He said they seem to be the same thing with different names and he is supportive of approving this proposal. Segelbaum agreed. MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 168 allowing for a Child Care Center in the Institutional (I-1) Zoning District at 145 Jersey Ave S subject to the findings and conditions listed below. Findin s: 1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use: Standard met. Child care is a necessary service for many members of the community. The applicant notes that families attending the K-6 school on site have requested a child care center for several years. Additionally, the applicant notes that the spaces for up to 20 children have been reserved. It is also noted that expansion may occur in the future. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Standard met. The proposed use is consistent with the Institutional designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for child care centers. 3. Effect upon Property Values: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to affect property values in a substantial way. 4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion: Standard met. Traffic flows are not anticipated to be substantially different from those that currently exist. Employees of the child care center would arrive between 7 and 8 am and depart between 3 and 6 pm on weekdays. The amount of additional cars coming through the parking lot because of the added number of children is not expected to significantly impact traffic flow. The church does not currently have a problem with overflow into the streets and city staff do not anticipate this issue to begin to occur because of the added child care center for up to 20 children. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: Standard met. The School currently has 27 employees, which would grow by 2 to 3 new employees. The Church currently has 9 employees and that would not increase with this proposal. There are currently 265 students enrolled at the K-6 school. The preschool (child care center) would allow for 20 additional children in the building. The site is able to accommodate this growth in population without negatively affecting neighboring property owners. 6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy: Not applicable. �ity c�f C��6c�en V�Iley Plannir�g Ccarr�r�ission Reg�siar Meetir�g 4 June 10, 2019 7. Increase in Noise Levels: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise. 8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations. 9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 10. Visual Appearance: Standard met. No exterior improvements are associated with this proposal. Future improvements to the parking lot will need to incorporate minimum standards in City Code. 11. Other Effects upon the General Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to have any other impacts on the surrounding area. Conditions: 1. The Child Care Center shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less. 2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the Child Care Center will require an amendment to the CUP. 3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 6 pm. � � Discussion—Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they've had several discussions about the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District. He said he would now like to discuss setback regulations for when a Mixed Use property is adjacent to or across the street from an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District, height regulations including minimum height requirements, and height limits when a Mixed Use property is within a certain distance of R-1 or R-2 properties. He added that he would also like to discuss transparency regulations. Zimmerman referred to previous discussions which included the pros and cons of having smaller setbacks which promote walkability and larger setbacks that provide more open space. He referred to some of the pros and cons of having a minimum height requirement and stated that requiring a second story may help spur more activity, density, and diverse uses, but may preclude one story retail or restaurants without a variance. Zimmerman referred to the 2040 Land Use Plan, pointed out all of the Mixed Use areas, and discussed the current and the proposed front, side and rear yard setbacks for each of the subdistricts. Zimmerman referred to the existing I-394 Mixed Use District height regulations and explained that it states that buildings located within 75 feet of a residential zoning district can't exceed the maximum height permitted in that residential district and that buildings occupying 5,000 square feet or more must be two stories in height. It also states that a one-story wing of a taller building may be permitted if it comprises no more than 25%of the length of the facade. He stated that these current regulations are complicated for developers and for staff to evaluate. He said staff is proposing language that says buildings must match the height of adjacent single family districts within 50 feet of a residential parcel Cit� c�f C�oltien V�il�y �lanning Cr�mmissic�n Regular Meeting 5 June 10, 2019 boundary. He added that the proposed new language also includes that a building stepback is required for upper stories that are 15 feet from the facade of the story below to help transition the two districts. He showed the Commissioners examples of different setbacks and building heights and how they relate to residential properties. Segelbaum asked if the examples shown of a 60-foot right-of-way were typical. Zimmerman referred to the areas targeted to be Mixed Use and stated that none of them abut typical single family streets and that most of them have 60 feet of right-of-way or more. Baker said he thinks it is important to have a pretty sizable setback between mixed use buildings and single family houses because it can really change the ambience of a neighborhood. Zimmerman said the areas targeted for Mixed Use don't really have an intimate neighborhood setting but in the future someone could ask to rezone their property to Mixed Use so the City needs to think about the appropriate setbacks and height regulations. Zimmerman said another issue the Commission has discussed is if a second story should be required on all mixed use buildings. He referred to pictures of several buildings in Minneapolis where the City asked for the buildings to be taller in order to keep with the neighborhood and surrounding buildings and to have a more pedestrian scale. He questioned if a second story use is important as well, or if it is just the additional height that is important. Baker said he isn't convinced that by requiring two stories the City would be chasing away restaurant or retail uses. Zimmerman noted that the current I-394 Mixed Use language requires a second story. Segelbaum asked how to avoid the idea that these areas might become strip malls. He said he is concerned about that effect in demanding a second story. Zimmerman said language could be added that says the second story has to be an active use and not just a facade that creates that height. Zimmerman referred to the current I-394 Mixed Use requirements related to transparency and the recently approved code language regarding transparency in other zoning districts. He asked for feedback on how much the Commission wants to build on the language already in the Zoning Code and if there should be even more transparency requirements in the Mixed Use District compared to other districts. Baker said the data shown lacks a pattern so he questions if they should add to the lack of pattern or if there is other data available that might inform a smarter approach. Zimmerman said one good way to consider this data is to visit places in neighboring communities that are zoned for mixed use to see how each one feels, but this is new enough that redevelopment hasn't occurred yet and these areas haven't been built out to the codes that have been adopted over the past 10 years so it is hard to see where any of these types of standards have been implemented. Brookins referred to the proposed language regarding height and asked about the 50-foot measurement as it relates to parcel boundaries and right-of-way boundaries. Zimmerman explained that the zoning district boundaries go to the edge of the street and that right-of-way includes the boulevard areas on City �f Calden Vali�y Pianr+in� Cor��ission �egular M�setirr�; 6 lune 10, 2019 both sides of a street and the street itself in the middle. Brookins said he likes the way the proposed language regarding height is written. Baker said 50 feet does not seem like a large enough area between buildings and adjacent single family properties. Brookins said he is comfortable with the 50-foot setback as proposed because to him the point of these districts is trying to make them walkable and places people want to go to and walk through that they are not getting other places in the City. Segelbaum noted that most residential properties have a 35-foot front setback which doesn't seem like a lot at times so to have a potential four story building within residential areas seems excessive in his mind. He suggested that maybe the stepback start at 50 feet but that four stories would require a 75- foot setback from abutting residential properties. Baker said they've been talking about walkability and people walk along streets not usually the sides or backs of buildings. Blum asked if there would be no rear setbacks abutting residential properties in most of the Mixed Use districts. Zimmerman said parking would likely be to the rear or side of the buildings. Johnson referred to St. Louis Park's code where it says the height can be the same as the minimum lot width or twice the height if the lot is double the minimum lot width. He said that seems easy to understand and the odds are that a residential building not an office tower would be built. Zimmerman agreed that is one way to determine height regulations. He added that a four story building is approximately 62 feet in height. Baker said he likes the stepback idea. Segelbaum asked if there is consensus on what sort of setback is needed for any type of building abutting residential properties. Brookings said Segelbaum's suggestion sounds reasonable and if the option is setbacks or a larger total distance he would prefer setbacks. He added that he would rather see a 50-foot setback requirement with a stepback at two stories than to require a 75-foot setback. Zimmerman said he can take these numbers and create some visuals or find some examples. Baker said he would like to know which Mixed Use Districts directly abut residential properties. Zimmerman referred to the 2040 Land Use Map and pointed out the districts that abut the back yards of residential properties, are across the street from residential properties, or are across railroad tracks from residential properties. Blum asked if they should focus more setbacks from properties across the street. Segelbaum said there are few instances where there would likely be a towering building across the street with a 60-foot right- of-way from an R-1 Zoning District. Zimmerman said staff could do an analysis of the properties and right-of-way widths. Baker said there would be almost 100 feet from a home and the front of a building across the street. Segelbaum said requiring a stepback seems like it would be less objectionable. Baker suggested having a tour or a list of some examples so they could see what these proposed setbacks look like. �ity ��f �c�lcier� t��ll�y Planeiin�, Cc�mmission Regul�r Meeting ? June 10, 2019 Blum asked the Commissioners their thought on the proposed height requirements. Segelbaum said requiring two stories seems to be a nice requirement but maybe not for a small property or building. Baker questioned if the City really wants freestanding, small businesses in these areas. He said he wants to see small lots adjacent to each other reach some agreement to provide a continuous facade rather than have a small alley between buildings. Segelbaum said he hasn't seen too many instances where property owners decide to build at the same time. Zimmerman said properties could be bought and combined as they are redeveloped. Blum asked Zimmerman if he knows of any difficulties other cities have had that require two-story buildings. Zimmerman said he doesn't. Segelbaum asked about buildings that just have a facade or a certain height rather than having two stories. Zimmerman said that is one of things that should be considered. Segelbaum said it seems satisfactory to him and there may be less concern as long as buildings are close to the street, parking is behind the buildings, and they don't look like a typical strip mall. Blum asked if there is any desire to limit the height of a floor. Zimmerman said the draft code language includes a maximum height for the first floor and maximum heights for additional floors in order to create a taller first floor for retail or office space. Zimmerman asked if the consensus is to require a second story. Johnson said he agrees with Segelbaum and would prefer using height rather than a number of stories. Brookins agreed. Segelbaum asked what the concern is about the maximum number of stories. Blum said he thinks is would prevent a warehouse type of building. Zimmerman said the next topic is transparency and asked the Commissioners if they think the Mixed Use district requirements should go above and beyond what is required in the other zoning districts. Baker said he doesn't see any reason to. Blum said he thinks the proposed regulations are well written. Segelbaum and Johnson agreed. Johnson said it would be a shame to go through all this work just to have cars zipping by so he hopes they can do something creative with the car/pedestrian design to complete the picture of these areas. Zimmerman agreed that there might be an opportunity with the Downtown Study to make other areas more interesting and walkable as well. --Short Recess-- Council Liaison Report Schmidgall updated the Commission on the most recent City Council meeting, including the approval of Architectural and Material standards and hiring a consultant to conduct Phase II of the Downtown Study. He also informed the Commissioners that an Open House would take place on June 12 to discuss the implementation of certain bike routes as part of the City's new Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. City of Gafden Valley P{anning Cammission Regular Meeting 8 June 10, 2019 Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings No reports were given. �-r�,y. Other Business � No other business was discussed. � �� Adjournment MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm. � ; � -�� Adam Brookins, Secretary y Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Y� � �� ., �� 3�v ,�., � , h, �� . � �� ,z ��',�,. �: �k 7' ��! v 2y . 1p, � 9�% % �� i city of �� alden � � � � � ,� � � � � � 11 Plannin D e artment va ey g p 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 24, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit (CUP-169)to Allow for the Operation of an Adult Day Care Facility in an Industrial Zoning District Property address: 2300 Nevada Ave N, Suite #300 Applicant: LSHLC Golden Valley Adult Day Program Property owner: NS Leasing, LLC Zoning District: Industrial Lot size: 92,707 sq. ft. (2.13 acres) Current use: Unknown Proposed use:Adult day care Future land use: Industrial Adjacent uses: Industrial �1�� `-°2414�3�� "�} � '��.�.' 4�i +'�' ,/,?l�� ,._ ' �71;10 �� ;. ' -... � ��,��. Rfy � �� , � � , � �� .�� Y �k�� ;t?u��ia,- , �� ` z�trrp �'`�� e"� 4y, ��fl � � ,R� .�r-.�^""+1 . �� ««§�£t; �� k , "' �,�F'� �`i. ,�p�'��^�-_ ._.. �_�7� `� �� .. „�_,�d i+l� �� 4:"J ��. 2`�otl '�'S,A�,',t.at � ` �� ..iAi, [ s �_. •_-. . '�`5 , 1 � ��""""��'� �, ¢�-,,,,�ar �.� `__-' �, _..�. .,�, � �� >`l, --h ,.. �� ! � ��71�7� � �r�d. � - � � '� ��y� :�. 1 �-..�. !`;., k�� `� �°sk`� �� . ,�r?°.{�p _ �. :4 �_"".:�.��, �.,, i � �7lttl ,�� 2455 �: s�pr��,:� .n' m �._F �s-� � ,�� 4 y � __m......,..n. �� .: �t 1420:�: . ` , � � �� ;� �� ¢ �, �e. t' �P 24(1'I �F �y.� �j�. rN ��.,p'+ g7p �F'� � �R oy f;+� �3., ' Y)1�NMalY� � y� ��h"�'4'� �,•,, ~ s� �� a6�. ` �„�, .n��'_ �t �4.'�ig.. g_�.8.� ' � ,a '�7 R ` �rJ < . � . .. � � ', �t� �...i'�:;�' � '� �..�'�� 23 5 �'��...�, - � •� � �'�i � �"��'�y�'��t, , " ; a�'�. ,�� 2335 ��M«^9�"�+ ' +'�-� �'�rr� , .`t�.' ..+ 2330 l� 3- �� .,� �.` z, � ' z s�. 4�� ,�� r''. '�j fi N�v i �,� ' ,� . ��` �R� 14! 3�. r � :��;�a "�: a '� ,'i0;1 � r I J �-1 OU�;•`_ �""��;��:�y � [�"� B" �' .,�� ,f� ,,�, E� � � *��. � � ;� .� _..t � a� ��'�S«13 oci'" � � ,�, x. � ' ' . � � "�'. �*�� . o� � s 1<<�1 R �� 'A�'�. =:�#n+�!`� ai��x'� ��"��"!#Mr�� ,. �_ . �. , ;, � _ � � � � �,r.� ��,p�'�". '��* ' '4'�j� K �, *. � ,.¢� +j� �` �� .. ��r� �_51 y se � ' +A 'l 'ikR' v�.�(If. W"v�. 'y.R"$'+I'+k�rb.�'IY/N�.: ^J:�1 y _.+. .r x �.r��' ct� � �`, ♦ . � r 1�5w ''$l�f��^��ys ��',�,QV' xF,�,�y'r±�r u �'' 11 (��1.�'� I�.� � d . �' + 7�Ipli , ' .,.r.-� .rr' �--�` !. � �`�'�` �i4 r,,� � �� ' � �. � + '' } �. r � ' I �� °�� '��R, , y� � N,� , 7I25 �`�� ,. ' c # 6801 �.,�.s � �°w i 4' �,�i�5y � t +'�`' . : � �# � ' .� , ,� y, '� W,� �a �. (�'`�y m. ,� i N 1 I �,� �' , e�'�"t ' - ' „ . �� 1k r U �� I�>,J " ��... � � � � �, � �� ''� �° �;��.� �� 4 , � _ t. � , ' � ,�.� ��,� ,`� � a y� k:_�4�'�'?4 � ti� t�,�Z'}h q� .�y y�$* � ' x ..� r Y , t"�i-��7520 7t 5pu;�.i ...r��,��'�"l��2U_ �-�`� �'�� ,•4,�, x"�, � .. ,� , .,,� �'''��.; rv � �. �'ir ��.��rr �3� .,�y�� "m "- > "f b t � . b.R.,,..._ ��,�� ? /#p. � . . ,, ,.-��^�-� ..,.�,'.3U 5 °� L06�� ,.. �.� �Yw,'�.8.�7.,. . 'w ��"++��:�"� .�x+,� '�n,� ��. ��.��` � �. � 2018 aerial photo(Hennepin County) 1 Summary LSHLC Golden Vailey Adult Day Program, represented by Saeng Kue, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Suite #300 of 2300 Nevada Avenue North in order to allow for the operation of an adult day care facility in an Industrial zoning district. This property is owned by the business located in Suite #200 of the same address. If the CUP is approved,the interior of the existing building would undergo some minor remodeling. No exterior changes are anticipated. Existing Conditions The subject property contains a one-story building that has 55 striped parking spaces along the west and north sides of the property and a secure area for trucks and equipment behind the building to the east. There are also three loading docks at the south end of the building. The suite in question occupies 4,505 square feet of the 18,991 square foot building. There are four other businesses in the building occupying the remaining 14,500 square feet—an office for computer support and services, a small construction company, and two tenants that use the space for storage only. The realtor for the property reports that typical parking needs for the two active business are approximately ten spaces total. The surrounding properties are all zoned Industrial and are occupied by a variety of manufacturing, warehousing, and shipping uses. Isaacson Park is located south of Sandburg Road to the east. Proposed Use LSHLC Golden Valley Adult Day Program proposes to use Suite #200 to provide day care services for up to 50 disabled adults, though a typical day is expected to see 25 to 35 clients on site. There would be seven full-time staff and three part-time consultants (a physical therapist, an RN, and a dietitian). Hours of operation would be between 8 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Clients would arrive and depart the center via two 15 passenger vans and four minivans that would be stored on the property. Pre-packaged snacks and lunches would be used; no food would be prepared on site. No external modifications to the site are being proposed. The program would require a license from the Minnesota Department of Human Services and occupancy standards would determine the maximum number of clients allowed to be served in this location. Neighborhood Notification Due to the lack of nearby residential properties, no separate neighborhood notification was required for this proposal. Property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were notified of the public hearing through the usual entitlement process. 2 Zoning Considerations Parkinq Use Requirement Calculation Minimum Parking Spaces Adult Day Care 1 per 5 clients 50 clients 10 Office 1 per 250 square feet Approx. 12,000 square feet 48 (construction and computer services) Storage 1 per 3,000 square feet Approx. 2,500 1 Total 59 Existing 55 + secured (ot -_—-- —_----_�---_= -- ----- Difference -4 Although there is a shortage of four striped parking spaces as determined by the minimum parking requirements outline in the Zoning Code for the various uses in the building, there remains sufficient space to accommodate additional parking within the secured area to the east of the building that currently hold vehicles and equipment belonging to the construction company. The Zoning Code allows for a reduction in the number of paved and striped parking spaces by 25 percent if it can be demonstrated that sufficient area remains to accommodate the remainder of the required parking should it be deemed necessary. Staff is comfortable accepting the secured portion of the lot as proof of parking for the remaining four required spaces. Evaluation The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the following factors (which need not be weighed equally): Factor Finding 1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. Adult day care continues to be in demand in the Twin Cities area as evidenced by numerous inquiries received by City staff in recent months. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met.The proposed use is not inconsistent with the Industrial designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for adult day care facilities. 3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. There are no anticipated modifications to the exterior of the building. 4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard met.Traffic to and from the site is expected to be minimal as the daily clientele will arrive and depart via two passenger vans 3 and four minivans. The traffic volumes on Nevada Ave and Sandburg Rd are sufficiently low to handle these additional trips. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Standard met. The number of daytime persons Density being added to the site is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the area, which is Industrial in nature. 6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Not applicable. Housing Policy 7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise. 8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Standard met. The proposed use is not Vibration anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations. 9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard conditionally met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. However, a secure garage enclosure will be required in order to ensure food scraps are not accessible to rodents or other pests. 10. Visual Appearance Standard met.There are no planned modifications to the exterior of the property, suggesting there will be no visual impact from the proposed use. 11. Other Effects upon the General Public Standard conditionally met. If the limits on Health, Safety, and Welfare the number of persons to be served as determined by the Minnesota Department of Human Services are followed, the proposed use is not anticipated to have any other impacts on the surrounding area. The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has no additional comments or concerns. The compfiance status of the property with respect to the City's Inflow and Infiltration requirement is currently unknown, but an inspection of the sanitary sewer system was conducted on June 11. Once the results have been analyzed, if corrections are required a deposit with the City will be made in order to ensure the work is done. Engineering staff supports the approval of the CUP. 4 Recommended Action Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 169 allowing for the operation of an adult day care facility at Suite#300 of 2300 Nevada Avenue North. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Any outdoor trash enclosure shall be designed to prevent access by rodents or other pests or vermin, as approved by City staff. 2. Maximum occupancy for Suite #300 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than 50 clients. If additional space is desired in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin County. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant Narrative (1 page) Interior plans (2 pages) Site survey (1 page) Building floor plan (1 page) 5 .'� _ 2525 2520 ��'��:_ 6 �� 7140 �" 7100 682 7150 69fi0 2500 2445 P=,t,i��ia�n F�s+k Vt� 7177 ��0 455 . �q�Q Subject Property: 24p� 2300 Nevada Ave N 2370 2ssa ��3� � 2355 � �: 2330 ' 23 25 `� � �: } :t304 7130 ?100 — . Z 23 45=2300 23 01 2155 7145 1,� 7101 35 2140 7125 125 2120 Dear Mr. Zimmerman. Following your inquiries, we are happy to provide the following information for your review and considerations: Brief Program Description We are proposing an Adult Day Services Center License (Rule 223) at 2300 Nevada Ave. Suite 300, Golden Valley, MN 55427 to be licensed by Minnesota Department of Human Services, Licensing Division. a.The number of employees: 7 Full-Time Program Staff(Staff Ratio: 8:1), and 3 Part-Time Consultants (Physical Therapist/Program Consultant, RN, and Dietitian) b. Hours of operation per day and days per week: 8:OOam — 5:OOpm, Monday to Friday, Except Holidays. c. Any exterior improvements (parking lot, landscaping, signage, etc.) - N/A d.A description of how clients will be arriving/departing from the site: An average of 25 to 35 clients will arrive at the center between 8:30am and 9:OOam and leave the center around 3:OOpm to 3:30pm. The center will use two 15 passengers Van and 4 Minivans to pick up clients and drop clients off daily. If you have any questions, please contact me anytime. Sincerely, Saeng D. Kue Center Director 612-227-1691 Exhibit "A" Plan of Demised Premises Suite #300 , � , „ ��s�:��.krr.ac��r .,,o..,.,c�n.�$+..:m�✓�.:��sc� r;,�N„��.:;:4;..d4�tr,^az.sv^z�%:.�^r��7� ^ � -,7 d �� . , � 7� � �.' �� y � eA ,�� ,:. e's% ��,�y �: 4� /s' ; %.. `� �`" y�,..-,t^-��. . � . 5 , t;� . _. .j . � 3'�� ,___ � ". i; � /. L..�, s �: ''. J'�� ,.�., r,-..,uF.... .rrx;.:.�2'£-.,.9" . �/, �� r��: _._ � �, � �� _.:. �_.._.0 ,, � � � `-, ` ^� �� ; _ . �� '� �N`> OffiCe �_ , � 4,505 sf ; �� 1 1 ,,. , , ; � �. � ,� � ��, a " .. ��. �.!�e .�; ti 1. ��y �� d `., y� �� /,'a' �f � v .,s��+ i � �� y E^'!/, �,� � �� i i ._.. <:�.��_.,::,_c„<:�:;.� � � � � �� .�,.��`,��'� a �q.K..,a� -:�a r� "/t, �` " ,y 7 � �v � �J �; �� , � 1 l. 2 � j �:-� ; , �� --- ' � . ,:;�--� ..,i,:;�� N� ��, � L: � /� f;, � �� J! e � �� 9 � ,e � c, �� ; �� 9i � 1 �:% _� �FF��E: �P�:�E F L��t�� 2��0 ��va�A av�r�u� �vc��r� fr � s�a�T� �o� � � �ro�erzi�s, Inc. GOLDEN VALLEYr fV1�lY�G..��fi J�4G1 ff . .. _. _ , . .:� . .,. . -.. . . >, .,.- _. . .. — . . ... � .C• �,m__.. , - . .... , r.>.�p _ .. . .. .. . ... - - .... t : . .� ... .�- . _ .'�. i � 3�ir..+ y:. �.;��, � � , � '` _.�.. z. �� R,�� ? 1 ' � ' �"�..e t i �u „ .:,� , ' , :�, _, y.. � , � � �y � � ,� �� .�� _ a , _ _ � ��:;�� , � � . � 9 � affiCe � � �� 4�,5(�� sf � . � � • �� W. _.: �,.. � � � .. � , � � _ _ ;�,� � � 3:� . . . . ... , . �,; . . . .� , . � . . _ ._..a_ _ ... _......__., - _ ��i �., � i�; _ �� ; _ __. ,� # , � �' *. �Y�-� ... �. � � ` r. ��ta�d� ""�� ' ` ' �r.;�,� ��,��,g""- ��€�=�_�� ..` _...�.,�;.... _. .... ,�� Stev€�Ne(sc�n Ky{e�fhorrrpsars h�0Y7 I�Ftt�PERTIES,lR4C. TEl . , TEL :., 275 Market Street,Suite 54S sneison@hnytpropert�es.corr, kthorr�pson�hoytproper:ies.com Mir�neapolis,Mt� 5�405 � wo�•slo�Can�nsfsy•MMM :qaM b�lOS3NNIW 'Jl3ll�dA N3olOrJ � �� wo��s�olan�nsfsy�jwo} :�iow3 H1bON 3f1N3Ad 110VA3N OOEZ �311S ��m� °N w'� xo� ti��—y88 (ZS6) t4£S—ti88 (ZS6) ��OZ OZtiSS 'uw 'uo;6uiwoo�g :JO� M+a9 �+WnN OM y�nos anuany a�opu�(� �gpg s.�Ndl�nsrio� � sao�3nans oNv� 1181NX3 ��Ni �o� NosNHor �s �aavH 1J81HX3 311S �aa �„.�, vt 40 0 � < V i � � `i � /'' I I I ( I � I i � I � I � I � I I � � ` ��tii� � � � � �� I 0 3�veans 13nva� �2_ � I J5 0� m � — �`.�v�'��O �Q 1^ i 0 l9 ` I o IN t09 9 I _._._ — — — • — — — — — — — _r � _ � _c _ _ � —i �,W— T � ___..._.. W < ' LL I I N p I � � O �N � N Z ` U � u I I � � � ' N g � Qo�J ! N � Z � am`m I W (Y � �� - ,,,>�o a. �,� Q � a ` o��= � C , � � � � ��$� � � N a N�42 N V � M � � < � � � } m n �/ I z rn � o; 3 " o' � �b a � � S�BZ �i ---- � I m -- i. . � .T l I r-- (�a , •k S{�dl��i� '�b �� W� 3 �N I m� z3 I . �` a o I �_ � � � Z � V ��l a � � %��/ �� a m a m � � � � � ..�� . .�. .� �, z Sl 5'1 `J N Yd Ot} �� 3 � � � �n � OW o� � o� �a � • ¢a �" / _ � — ._ �'� / � � � � �% / •nn i •-� n v vnv � -�� i �-�` , V I V �/ � V V V V / \J I V ��"'� ,, i � s — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --' c � a _._.._ .� _— _--_ _---- — :,.�,�.m.��.._�.�..4..�� .._.. — - � � �� W C:7 < 4 ��=�� tL"'f, �. ' i' MII � � I � � � Z � � � � T � V R � �'� '....f.�,� Z G IwT _ . - . _._�i � - f � � � � �' r�1 •�I / �1 `V � i �. � 6 C az :::,,:... . : -- _---- ,� ----- — y 0. � � , - _ _- . ---- �"d < < � _ � • z >" � _ < , �i, _. ' �. I � � , y .. V � �.— _ C .� d y� ti' oG > 13 ..- ..__�- , ._ _ f.��" � CS u 1• �: � �� -- � � Q WD c � Y.....- .'—. � e ,,((�' � n � � '"'' � P+�M Q N ��" -�` - �' � �'� � � < a � _ -- J � "t ` '- e;� .��,� � � � ti, y 0. [( ��' :V - .. {/1 O u rw. C � 'j�� ,� � f_�,. " . . l_ _ ,__ � (� � v. �'^` � �� - U - ,___� �-_. '' .�'• � '; � $ � y . � =_; . - � . -� +�` c,y L . ;:_ ,,,, -�:� � • �, , ;. � � ¢ ..r - �~-�-- - .,- ci 'o (� � '��} ♦•, ` r U G =='1"': - -�_•.- - _ ___ CJ � � � � � _�.._� ;•� �_- L"i � � �� j' � �q Q ,�. . '_�--'- -- _ _..__ C� > C) � , � i � o _a � N � � � 1..� � � � � � v v ,o . �_ � ►� � � 'c 1� o, a �- � J � � Q� r� � � �� '�� a %�� ; �;,.,, ,�� `1 �� a ��f /%.'�,�7k t (l«�v�� fl, �a 3�71 . €i% �i}��, Physic�l Developrne��t �►�ep��rtrn�n�t �s�-��-sc��t��-��-s�c��t�� Date: lune 24, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Anderson, Planning Intern Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Mixed Use Zoning District Discussion Summary Since the previous discussion with the Planning Commission on May 13, 2019, staff wishes to continue discussions regarding impervious surface limits, open space minimums, and Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) requirements in the proposed Mixed Use District. These regulations are typically put in place to reduce environmental impacts, improve the aesthetic quality of the area, and increase opportunities for pedestrian activity. Previous Discussion In the previous discussion about impervious surface and open space regulations on May 13 (see attached), Commissioners discussed what amount of impervious surface should be allowed and the nuances of impervious surface regulations in this kind of zoning district where pedestrian activity and medium to high density development is encouraged. Discussions revolved around potentially requiring a minimum amount of open space, the design of such space,the maximization of walkability in this district, and selecting the right amount of impervious surface without excluding the types of developments that the City wants to see. The Commission also discussed the idea of requiring a minimum amount of Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA), similar to St. Louis Park, which is intended to require space for recreation activities of any kind. Definition and Purpose Clearly distinguishing between these different types of spaces and articulating their unique purposes are important steps in the process of writing new regulations. Since the last meeting, staff discovered that the Zoning Code includes definitions for impervious surface, pervious/permeable surface, and useable open space. The definition for useable open space is very similar to the DORA requirements in St. Louis Park. 1 Type of Space Current Code Definition Purposes of Regulation Impervious Surface Any surface that cannot be • Reduce urban heat island effectively penetrated by water, effect thereby resulting in runoff, such as • Increase stormwater pavement (asphalt, concrete), infiltration buildings, structures, driveways . Reduce flooding and roadways, parking lots, • Improve water quality, air sidewalks, and swimming pools. quality, and human health • Improve aesthetic quality and visual character of an area Pervious/Permeable A surface that allows precipitation Same as above Surface to infiltrate into the ground. Useable Open An outdoor open ground area or • Encourage active living, Space terrace area on a lot which is which can improve health graded, developed, landscaped, and wellness and equipped, and intended and • Improve aesthetic quality maintained for either active or and visual character of an passive recreation, which is area available and/or accessible to, and usable by all persons using or occupying a building or premises. Roofs, driveways, and parking areas shall not be regarded as usable open space. Buffer Zone No formal definition is found in It is required in the Commercial, City Code, but it is generally Office, Light Industrial, and described as landscaped and Industrial Districts to provide planted area composed of lawn or visual appeal and stormwater vegetation. Riparian buffer strips infiltration between parking lots are specifically adjacent to and buildings. See below for more wetlands and ponds and details. composed of only natural vegetation and not of improved/fertilized lawn. The goal is to find good balance between creative freedom for site designers challenged with the many constraints associated with redevelopment (as compared to greenfield development), environmental considerations, aesthetics, and financial feasibility. Staff suggests that if the Commission is interested in such regulations that a combination could serve well to try and achieve all goals. Using regulations already written in the Zoning Code for other districts is encouraged because it gives continuity and simplicity to a complex document. 2 Impervious Surface Developing a comprehensive scheme for impervious surface limits across all districts will be developed later this year. In the meantime, staff suggests finding a limit that is appropriate for the Mixed Use District. The Mixed Use District should have higher impervious surface limits than residential districts, which range from 50%to 60%. This is because the front yard will be reduced or eliminated in the Mixed Use District in order to promote walkability and focus human activity on the street, right of way, sidewalks, trails, and "the public realm" in general (rather than privately owned front yard space typical of other zoning districts). The goal is also to blend urban and suburban characteristics and designs together to find the right balance for properties in Golden Valley, which is slowly transitioning to an urban character along transit lines, sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes. Existing Conditions Current Percent Current Regulation Zoning District Impervious �per Each Lot) (Average) R-1 14.83% 50% R-2 10.80% 50% R-3 34.13% 60% R-4 35.66% 60% I-394 Mixed Use 73.07% 65% Commercial 71.17% None Industrial 65.28% None Light Industrial 61.23% None I-1 38.81% None I-2 45.05% None I-3 44.27% None I-4 6.77% None I-S 8.67% None PUDs 43.1% See table below Currently, the maximum impervious surface limit in the I-394 Mixed Use District is 65%, but if the mixed use development occurs within a PUD,the limit is 90% (see following table): Uses in a Planned Unit Development Impervious Surface Max. Townhomes 40% Apartments/Condos 42% _ Institutional 45% Industrial _ 70% Office 80°� :_ Commercial _ 90°� Mixed Use 90% 3 A table attached to this memorandum includes the impervious surface calculations for existing PUDs in the City. Note that recent developments have not always complied with the guidance provided in the table above for PUDs. This is because PUDs allow for negotiation of these standards based on site conditions and other considerations. The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) consultants have recommended a 90% limit for subdistricts A and B and an 80% limit for subdistrict C. Staff sees somewhere between 70- 80% as a reasonable compromise, but would like to discuss this at the meeting. With this amount of impervious surface, stormwater management techniques are typically installed underground rather than above ground. Stormwater Management The City should aim to achieve resiliency and environmental goals set in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and these sustainability questions are part of the discussion of impervious surface and open space regulations in the Mixed Use District. With higher impervious surface limits in this district comes stormwater management challenges. Since the 1990s, the City of Golden Valley has been making incremental progress in reducing the effect of flooding and excess stormwater runoff in Golden Valley, and staff wishes to continue in this direction. Trends in development have leaned towards underground stormwater management tactics to maximize aboveground lot space. With these underground systems, it is tougher to meet stormwater volume reduction requirements and could potentially interfere with underground utilities. Engineering staff at the City would like is required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to require aboveground stormwater management practices first, and if that is not feasible, then underground storage is the next option. Pervious Surface (Green Space) One of the key themes in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was the strong desire from residents to preserve existing green space and add more to the community over time. An easy way to think about green space for zoning purposes is to look at it as pervious surface—the opposite of impervious. Pervious or permeable surface is defined in the Zoning Code as surface that allows precipitation to infiltrate into the ground. There may or may not be human activities that occur on the space, but it fosters the life of trees, plants, grass, and other vegetation. Many residents use the terms open space and green space interchangeably. However, open space differentiates from green space in that it is a broad definition saying that the space does not have any buildings or built structures and is accessible to the public. Open space does not necessarily require vegetation and other natural elements, meaning open space could be impervious surface if the developer chooses, as long as its useable by people (like a plaza) and not cars (like a parking lot). Requiring useable open space gives developers more flexibility in design, but gives the City less control over what the open space will become. Useable Open Space/Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) Since the current definition in the City Code for Useable Open Space is so similar to the DORA definition used by St. Louis Park, staff suggests that the City continue using the Useable Open 4 Space language and applying a requirement to the Mixed Use Zoning District. The Planning Commission should discuss whether swimming pools should be included or excluded. St. Louis Park recommends a minimum of 12% DORA and this could work well for Golden Valley. Currently in the I-394 District for lots over 1 acre,the minimum required open space is 15% of the lot. In other non-residential districts, a buffer zone is required (see below for details). Current Regulations Zoning District Green/Open Buffer Zone Required Space Minimum Commercial % of side and rear yard shall be landscaped, planted, and Light Industrial maintained as a buffer zone. Setbacks range from 20 to 100 Industrial feet. Institutional Office Mixed Use On lots over 1 acre, minimum 15% Off-Street Buffers. If off-street parking lots are located on the Parking Section periphery of sites and in view of adjacent and nearby of City Code properties, the City will require them to be screened with trees, shrubs, fencing, decorative walls, berms or some combination of these in setback areas along one or more lot lines. Tree and Landscape Requirements In addition to green/open space/DORA regulations, the City's minimum landscape requirements will also apply to development in the Mixed Use District. The minimum requirements would be one tree per 50 feet of lot perimeter and one shrub or perennial per five linear feet of lot perimeter. These requirements could be conducive to potential regulations in the Mixed Use District. TradeofYs to Consider Height It is important to consider that these regulations could potentially encourage developments to go higher rather than farther out on the lot. In an area with high land values and high construction costs, the Planning Commission may want to consider the relationship that these regulations have to height regulations. The goal is to set regulations that meet the expectations of the community while also allowing redevelopment to be financially feasible. If regulations are set too strict, property owners will not redevelop properties or they will apply for a PUD. For example, a building height bonus could be granted in the Mixed Use District if the amount of impervious surface is limited to a number far under the maximum threshold. Some developers may want to take advantage of this, but it could over-complicate the Code. 5 Engineering division staff notes that they are seeing a trend in development related to building footprint and height that is influenced by stormwater management regulations. Whenever possible, developers are attempting to reduce the footprint of the building to reduce the volume of stormwater that must be treated on site, which can lower costs. Setbacks The amount of impervious surface is also related to the setback regulations for the Mixed Use District. Front setbacks in this zoning district can be much smaller than typical front setbacks, but it could limit the amount of pervious surface in the front of the building and shift it to the back, where it might not be as easily enjoyed or as environmentally effective. Staff Request Staff is looking for feedback around the following questions: 1. Should the impervious surface limit be raised from 65%? Should it differ by Subdistrict? 2. Should the City require a minimum of 12 or 15% useable open space, and not just for lots over 1 acre? 3. Should the side and rear yard require that% be landscaped as a buffer zone? Next Steps Staff will continue to revise the draft zoning text based on discussion and feedback and will raise additional questions regarding Mixed Use requirements at upcoming Planning Commission meetings. Attachments Planning Commission Minutes, May 13, 2019 (5 pages) Impervious Surface Calculations for Planned Unit Developments (2 pages) Zoning Map (1 page) 2040 Land Use Map (1 page) 6 ��. : � �,:i�k � v. ,BC;�?C�ralr,l��r.V<sl(¢y 13��ci�C7c�lc�art Va11r�y;��d�5��7 ,� � � � �"� 763 �� 3t>t�`� 1�s Y 7l"��93�39��,7�i��59� f31��rf�x}��r�;�•v.c�o3�32nvalleyrr7n.��v ��"� � �.` �`� �� ' - � �, r , �,� � � � "� , _w.,.,,.,,. .....w��.� __<,,,,,. �..... ... .....��,�--�.�,.,�._w w,,.,�,.�. .�,...�«�.�,w.��_.��. ..�,„,.� ° � � � �... �� • w o � �„;. � ,, g,t�.. a,�,� .. May13, 2019-7pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order e meeting was called to order at 7 p by Chair Baker. Roll I Commi ' ners present: Rich Baker, on Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy John , auren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Ch ck Segelbaum Commissione bsent: None Staff present: Planning M ager Jason Zimmerm enior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, A inistrative Assist isa Wittman Council Liaison present: None Baker introduced and welcome w mmi ner, Ryan Sadeghi. Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Segelbaum, se d by m to approve the agenda of May 13, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unani sly. Approval of Minutes April 22, 2019, Regul lanning Comm sion Meeting Johnson asked at the following sente e be added to page six of th ril 22 minutes:Johnson questioned ' combination of no parki g and wide sidewalks would enco e cars to speed, which would n reate a pedestrian friendly vironment. MO N made by Johnson, seconded Blum to approve the April 22, 2019, minutes with the above ed amendment and the motion carr d unanimously. Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman gave a brief summary of the Planning Commission's last discussion regarding the Mixed Use Zoning District and discussed the changes made to the proposed code language since then. These changes include the addition of descriptions of the three subdistricts, removal of the minimum fa�ade buildout requirement, removal of fa�ade types, a change from live-work units to home occupations, and the revision of setbacks in front, side, and rear yards and for parking and storage. Zimmerman stated that at this meeting he would like to discuss the impervious surface, building/lot coverage, and open space requirements and would also like input about what the Commission thinks about the definition of the three subdistricts. '° This document is available in alternate forrn�ts upon a 72-hour request. Please call � 763-593-8006 {TTY: 763-593-39b�) ta make a rec�uest. Ex�mples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. �ity r��c�l�� I��1�y ��r��'rng�c�rr�r�is�i�r� E��a��r ��s� � �� C�1�-�7 pa� Zimmerman explained that Subdistrict A is a neighborhood, smaller scale subdistrict which allows residential uses, institutional uses, restricted office uses, and many commercial uses. However, gasoline sales, automotive repair, self-storage, and outdoor storage would not be permitted. Subdistricts B and C are community scale subdistricts along larger transit corridors and would allow high density residential (in Subdistrict B), hotels, and larger scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. Subdistrict C is similar to Subdistrict B but would not allow residential uses and is focused on employment. Blum referred to the draft code language and said that when he read the descriptions of the subdistricts he wasn't sure if he was reading hard rules of the subdistricts or a description of what's to come. He questioned if these districts would always be tied to one neighborhood and if they will always have businesses that exclusively serve that neighborhood. He suggested the language in the description of Subdistrict A be changed to say "...surrounding neighborhoods which are typically a small, moderate, or medium scale." Baker referred to the definition of Subdistrict A and said he doesn't find the words "small" or "moderate" or "medium" meaningful. He questioned where the subdistrict definition language came from and if it is a reflection of reality or taken from other places. Zimmerman explained that the language came from many of the Planning Commission discussions over the past several years and wanting the ability to create neighborhood nodes with a mix of uses that weren't allowed in the current zoning—things like restaurants and commercial services next to homes which is very different than the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Segelbaum said that a lot of the motivation was to have neighborhood businesses such as a small restaurant or dry cleaners and questioned if there is anything in the proposed language to stop a whole area from being townhomes. Zimmerman stated that the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance and target points of what the City wants in these areas. Segelbaum questioned uses that would be allowed by a matter of right. Blum suggested putting a hard cap of different types of uses to prevent having one hundred percent of the same use in an area. Segelbaum said it would be hard to dictate the uses and he is worried about being too proscriptive. He added that the language in Subdistrict B does a nice job describing what's allowed and said that might be a good way to handle Subdistricts A and C as well. Baker referred to the staff report and noted that is specifically called out auto repair and gasoline sales as being allowed in Subdistrict B. He suggested that transit oriented uses be included as well. Johnson noted that Subdistrict A allows buildings that are four stories which take a lot more money and lot more time but are advantageous and what they are envisioning, but the risk is that someone will build a one story building because it is cheaper and he questions who would build a four story building next to a one story building. Zimmerman said another issue that has been discussed and staff is testing is setbacks. He showed the Commission examples of setbacks with smaller setbacks in Subdistrict A and larger setbacks in �ot� a€�c��r� �/��r Pl�r��r�� rr�rx�i��r� R��r �di�€�t�r�� R�€&�� .L«Sg C.tB.[.�`°•, $ py� �.� Subdistricts B and C. Segelbaum asked if there should be larger setbacks in Subdistrict B than there are in Subdistrict A because Subdistrict B would have larger developments that could be close to residential. Zimmerman said staff will continue to test different setbacks in different areas. Goellner referred to the current and proposed impervious surface requirements and stated that the TOD consultants are recommending allowing 90% maximum in Subdistrict A, 90% maximum in Subdistrict B, and 80% maximum in Subdistrict C. She explained that there needs to be some limits so that 100% of a lot isn't paved, but the requirement can't be so low that the City won't get the kind of buildings it wants to see. Baker noted that the current limit is 65% and with a PUD it is 90%. He asked what the downside would be of keeping the 65% requirement and allowing 80%with a PUD. Zimmerman said it encourages more use of PUDs and staff is trying to get away from that and allow more things by right. Also, PUDs require two acres so small lots would be excluded. He added that some of the recent projects done in the City have been in the 75%to 80% impervious surface range. Segelbaum said Subdistrict A is looking for small businesses and there are small lots in that subdistrict, so he is okay with the proposed higher impervious surface requirements in that subdistrict, but he feels differently about Subdistricts B and C. Blum said it makes a big difference to him whether the impervious surface is a parking lot or a building. He said he thinks not having a lot of parking space and having more building space will help reach the goal of walkability. Goellner referred to the open space requirements and said the current requirement is for lots over one acre, there has to be 15% minimum open space. She said she thinks it would be appropriate to have a minimum requirement for all lots and she thinks there needs be discussion about how open space is defined. She said the goal of open space for this district is to bring people to it and not have it just be turf or lawn without anywhere to sit or anything to do and is not really serving a purpose. She said the TOD consultants recommend that there be a choice of one of three open space types on a property: a square, plaza, or pocket park. She said she thinks what they are really looking for is a space with defined edges that feels like a person could go into it and use, landscaping, and walkways or connections to buildings or streets. She noted that the City of St. Louis Park's code states that a percentage of the lot has to be "designed outdoor space." Baker said he would rather require paved walkways, landscaping, seating, etc. that are open to the public and not say that there has to be either a square, plaza, or pocket park. Zimmerman said it is hard to require private property owners to dedicate space for public use. Segelbaum suggested adding language stating that open space plans are subject to staff approval. Zimmerman stated that there could be a site plan review process with the Planning Commission. Blum suggested adding "and any other plan approved by the approval body" to deal with things like Ci�y c��t�c�ld�� f��y Pl�r�r�i�� Cca�nmisswc�r� �t��(�� l�f��t�rs� � �ll�y 1�$ �0�.��-°� p� swimming pools and tot lots which may not contribute to the flow and character of the districts as they are trying to design them. Baker questioned how to encourage synergy to get owners to do something with neighboring property owners. Zimmerman said that comes with the principles put into the code and in guiding and encouraging developers. Segelbaum said it seems difficult to legislate these types of things because developments rarely occurs simultaneously. Zimmerman said the districts could have a plan with pedestrian connections and other things laid out so as development occurs there are approved plans that developers have to adhere to. Brookins referred to the side yard setback requirement of 50 feet and said he thinks in order to maximize the facades at the street front that should be reduced because parking would have a 15 foot setback so it is not unreasonable to have a building at a similar setback. He said in regard to the impervious surface requirements he doesn't see a lot of value in proscribing the amount that could be building. He said he would like to consider putting the front fa�ade percentage requirement language back in the code to maximize walkability and the percentage of frontage at the street. He added that he would encourage using the designed outdoor space language and said if a majority of that space is private he is fine with that and does not expect developers to include a space for him to use, but he would like to require a walkable street area for people to walk by. Baker said he loves the idea of these districts having spaces for the public to linger. Zimmerman said there may be opportunities for developments to provide public spaces. Pockl referred to the designed outdoor space language in the staff report and asked how a minimum of 12%was chosen. Goellner said she did not know. Zimmerman added that St. Louis Park staff said it works well. Pockl asked if there was a recommended percentage for a square, plaza, or pocket park. Goellner said no. Blum said he is thinking of pedestrian passage and asked if there is a way to achieve enhanced sidewalks. Johnson said he doesn't want to make this too complicated. He said they don't know if the 65% maximum impervious surface allowed in the current Mixed Use Zoning district works and yet now they are discussing 80%. He said maybe if they just kept it at 65%then by definition there will be open space. He referred to the screening requirement and said he wants to make sure it's relatable to other parts of the City and to not forget what they are trying to accomplish as opposed to working really hard to refine the numbers. Baker said if they overly constrain each lot then there will be problems and no one will be attracted to that and if they only define the entire district the City won't get what it wants mixed around. He said he really likes the idea of a plan within each district and encouraged going in that direction. Segelbaum agreed and said they shouldn't overcomplicate things. He said they can't achieve all of the goals in one set of parameters and they have to encourage the things that are most important. ��ty c�f��a�� 11��y P1�r�ra`sr��rr�r�issi�ar� ��g��r ��6�� y 1�g �Q�.��7 prr� Zimmerman referred to current uses permitted by right and uses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and in the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District language. He noted that the proposed new language also includes restricted and prohibited uses. Blum noted that some neighboring cities are looking to minimize drive-thrus and gas stations and asked staff how they feel about those uses being a good fit in the Mixed Use Zoning District they are trying to design. Zimmerman said he would not want gas stations in the neighborhood districts, and would be comfortable not allowing them in Subdistrict B, but he doesn't see a problem with allowing them in Subdistrict C. Blum stated that when gas stations go out of business they can become a brown site and be undevelopable. He said in regard to drive-thrus he thinks they have a substantial negative effect on the kind of vehicle traffic they want to see in a pedestrian focused area and it goes against the feel they've been talking about wanting for these districts. Zimmerman said he has a different opinion about drive-thrus. He said he thinks allowing them is key for restaurants, and other drive-thrus such as Starbucks, Walgreens and banks so he is cautious about not allowing any drive- thrus. He added that they need to be designed well, not be in front of the building, and have the queuing away from pedestrians. He added that he would be comfortable removing gasoline and automotive uses from Subdistrict B, but keeping drive-thrus as a conditional use. Zimmerman stated that the next step is to bring this item to the City Council for some feedback at a Council/Manager and then back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. --Short Recess-- A ual Commission Orientation Zim rman gave the Commission th annual orientation presentation. He discussed, the City's organiz ' nal chart, board and com ission structure, the City's current boards and commissions, roles and onsibilities, expectatio , guiding principles, and core values. Pockl asked a t the mission state nt the boards and commissions created. Zimmerman said he would talk to the irector about at and let the Commission know how it ' 'ng used. Election of Officers Johnson nominated Blum for 'r. : lum accepted t ination. Segelbaum nominated Johnson for Chair. Johnson accepted. Sege m said ught both Commissioners would make an excellent Chair, he just likes the ide missioners rotating from Secretary to Vice Chair to Chair. Blum said he would focu reati a goo al record for someone to be able to look back on and see that the Com ' n is doing t right thin . e said he sees the Chair as being a deferential one and that ever e else's comment ' ould come b e his. He said being a facilitator would be his focus as ir. elbaum called for a vote for Ch Impervious Surface in Percent PUD Name Square Feet Total Square Feet Impervious 1-A Bassett Creek Medical Office 176,442 299,140 59.0% 1-B Covenant Manor(Co-op) 139,448 217,138 64.2% 5 Vallee D'or 116,863 606,560 19.3% 6 Hidden Village Homes 134,867 264,722 50.9% 7 Briarwood Apartments 259,453 750,027 34.6% 8 Dover Hills Apartments 257,810 581,015 44.4% 13 Kings Valley Townhomes 401,842 1,189,864 33.8% 14 Galant Patio Townhomes 18,342 36,059 50.9% 18-A Laurel Estates Apartments 80,006 193,426 41.4% 22 Tennant Company(Office) 142,511 301,944 47.2% 24 Midtown Townhomes 23,835 103,029 23.1% 25 Westview Business Center 447,975 654,394 68.5% 26 Calvary Square Apartments 34,915 67,131 52.0% 27 Laurel Estates (Condos) 157,739 475,751 33.2% 28 Pondwood Office Park 37,084 150,535 24.6% 30-B Pheasant Glen/Medley Ln Condos 118,022 315,366 37.4% 33 North Wirth Offices 264,044 395,427 66.8% 34 Perpich Center for Arts Ed 228,549 1,097,854 20.8% 36 Lakeview Terrace 10,467 107,174 9.8% 39 West Metro Surgical Center 98,805 206,544 47.8% 41 Valley Wood 2,564 13,133 19.5% 42 Golden Valley Professional Center 91,176 148,298 61.5% 44 Pem Millwork Addition 99,971 134,842 74.1% 46 Calvary Lutheran Church 241,625 392,065 61.6% 47 Valley Square Plaza 140,514 209,792 67.0% 48 Meridian First Addition 3,741 30,707 12.2% 51 Mallard Creek Apts. 117,959 334,221 35.3% 53 The Colonade 194,962 307,391 63.4% 54 Sovde Addition 4,967 19,860 25.0% 55 Public Storage 57,600 88,605 65.0% 56 Golden Valley Civic Center 265,906 425,520 62.5% 58 McDonald's 48,487 59,672 81.3% 59 Dahlberg Addition 135,317 186,404 72.6% 61 Dahlbeg Commerce Center 146,119 275,207 53.1% 63 Saturn Dealer/Infiniti Dealership 223,413 309,692 72.1% 65 Golden Valley Shopping Center 326,208 384,693 84.8% 66 Jim Lupient Oldsmobile 377,626 414,669 91.1% 67 Westwood Offices 253,668 371,104 68.4% 68 SuperAmerica-Auto Shops 132,097 183,468 72.0% 70 Golden Valley Commons 244,059 339,216 71.9% 71 Valley Creek Medical Office 231,254 378,516 61.1% 72 Trevilla 103,873 199,912 52.0% 74 Hidden Lakes 1,076,313 4,773,214 22.5% 75 Menard, Inc. 488,063 533,708 91.4% 76 Medley Townhomes 102,926 248,564 41.4% 77 Medley Condos 62,408 150,502 41.5% 78 Golden Hills Duke Realty 450,532 639,578 70.4% 79 Room &Board 416,892 569,717 73.2% 81 Golden Hills Office Center 207,326 324,644 63.9% 83 James Ford Bell Tech lab 906,721 4,594,405 19.7% 84 Animal Humane Society 138,035 247,016 55.9% 86 Wesley Commons 297,946 510,870 58.3% 87 Allianz 342,793 550,559 62.3% 88 Breck School 740,896 2,229,478 33.2% 89 Golden Meadows 33,321 115,911 28.7% 90 Meadowbrook School 231,993 458,538 50.6% 91 Luther Toyota 488,884 571,283 85.6% 93 K4RS 3rd Addition 50,108 286,459 17.5% 94 General Mills HQ 1,295,391 3,885,379 33.3% 95 Porsche-Audi 321,787 431,330 74.6% 96 Central Bank 47,387 88,797 53.4% 97 Sunrise Senior Apartments 137,693 249,415 55.2% 98 Golden Ridge 53,739 234,830 22.9% 100 North Wirth Business Center 59,087 111,178 53.1% 109 Eldridge 3rd Addition 22,329 115,267 19.4% 110 Boone Avenue Convenience Center 59,250 92,808 63.8% 112 The Three.Nine.Four Apartments(Talo) 209,893 321,669 65.3% 113 The Xenia 153,212 254,422 60.2% 114 Tennant Company 716,424 1,105,207 64.8% 115 Morrie's Golden Valley 202,271 245,133 82.5% 117 Laurel Ponds 61,239 144,092 42.5% 118 hello. 87,424 112,121 78.0% 120 Sweeney Lake Woods 23,422 151,075 15.5% 121 Central Park West 143,402 237,771 60.3% 122 CenterPoint 271,342 566,259 47.9% 123 Liberty Crossing 248,378 473,290 52.5% 124 Cornerstone Creek 47,430 97,862 48.5% TOTAL 16,788,383 38,942,438 43.1% r^ ,m � o�u ��N!��ttti.. uJ R� � U � S��ry f�r\�,�1Nf 'v�� , �.� = / u� oc.e� . � JY � V fr� -� � ��o � . �� •= � � u'� 'c W m I--� Q y u°r u"'i p. u /�� ;.� ''� -(�+ '�'+ � _ - �rc `° n o � � �d 3c��^u� @ m ' 4�{ �/�':�c� !M •� v �-I �> ? � V� i. 8 c„ui � �= .) ?, ,�+.� c , "� N ,�„ e o u o o � d €i:a 8 p� .o� �t �..�' �� r.� O �u �' +� N � v ' °# � ;,^ ;E � �. [V ��r-o%. p �s �'y�i.7'`~, VJ "�"�" � ,� � ^ » �8 � n ��` �, � G � .� �F$c^,e m u, .. �a ''�r�1_ll:�l� •� N v p o i a�u ++ r+ iV ++p ++ Q. � O ��ar� � : U m . �� +h9n M J a� .v. .v» .v. .v. .v. � � N o€�m� ' $ � E �c� � a ' � � ' _` � � � i ^ �° .2"'.+ .b .b .t'+ 2+' G! (� a •a �� p £ O o �L � ,i ', � Q FC U �z � � � .�'. � � pp � a� e e` y c�m W Y ;�' � � � � � iC e� Q G.� C] C] C] Q .� v =s�� Q d� P�, c a �a o �� W � � m � -� LL3 .� � .G ,s] �] °A�"��` .� "E s' °� -m w �o N o � � ^„ v � �, .b b .� � � � � � � � N c �'_�� a, ?" °o �. v =� o o a E ?$� � � �] -� � `.� .�. '� cn � Cn c!) cn U] cn C p, `0 e a aF� > o a �_, y v� N r i� "> v_i � Q X .�n a � �� ,� G � �e � �=ao� O ;E €� o - ° �' � f3.� � �" � '" � :3 :7 N �i � 'l+ � � •.: r� '�' ^d a�i •� s$o3r '� tt ' � Q Ua n L e o � O • �. Cn Cn (n i.--.i .r+' N - '"� � ; a w . O f , � '� '� � � ,'�" .Ci � V ��'..+ � � 'G ��'M � `s if . u� � p a Z =n 9 ¢ � U'. 1 p � bA O� 4:. c�n o ss�$�� p �a �%:` a ' U e� � o 0 O C/� � !-. �4 � �,� U f-1 � � � , ��1 � � W �i 83"F � v,_ a`y=� � Q m � Z �� r ? � Z 8 Z o a OO � N OD � I ID 0 � $ * � W pN a m � E � J � o ,Q ° O �a '¢ a . � i�= � �,i i��i� i�ti�ii� i� t i i; ' % si i<id��i�hnv -t�� i i� � i---�---�` - ._.._ .._�..... - -. - `u -..W,. � �- -�--- -- . ^"-.,--, � � � , , : ' , � ; a�„ , -- �,, / i - , ;� . � . � , , �. , � � `'� � — � S�� f �. ,� .,� , v� i � I., ..�..... �.n.,.., _�.. ��^,. .�N . . _..." � 1 J - �'./ �� r- /y ",p .- , Q I �r i s .\ . / ��`�^+� � V- 4!�d �— I ;' �a . . .. ,. ,.f _ .. 9d`d�' . ;. i � �,�� %� ._ . __' � '.'� � . .G Y t �i ,.. i ' . � �saa�a� �.�e� . �„�j �`. ��i �i v - i � y � �. ., � �� " 3�m" . 3� 3 ,. � �P oem . . -�� . ��I .` �J � i - � o mo �.z� � �I _ 7 �, °; �, � ��a r , � � . � . ' - , _ LJ � � l �Q �$ R , , I ' e f � � �'- . � �;,n� �o- _ ,_s„ � ' i ; i " -_. �. � �. i<�i� i� .�i� . �: Q�,�,;, A � _ � 4_..—�— — — —�—— ._ ..N.,_......w.._.._.._._ : , � �� .� . ��`'%: , �, - �r . �,. .. � � �N,� � �� . n �. . , � , : i � � �; q ; ,:� . " e „�' ' �� - " '� M � /�'� � �� .,, , �� - � /'�mg i . �_ 4 � - ��E # S � : i y - I�II�(ISVIIH(71I / z�8 1- , '�� .. y. . . .. _ � f r .., . , , � -4F1-k'YT'� � '2 � C ,� ,p ' �i � ; , `;�� „ � e � '_"_'_" "_"_""'"___""_'_"' _." _J _. , � - � �r�v v.„r �fT.R"_'_' �, _ � ` i �.,.� . ; � ..�, �, .,,. �� ,. � g �„� e.,e,�� 1� �, .. ° ��4.�:. o i � �_. ` , � . " " � �'' � � �� :��_ � � .....,�d a ,,..M ,ao�,,.. � � �� i � , • • � P .., '+� I . < a a .,� , _ '°7;. . , � � � � � _ � „ a � � � �,T�� '� a ! . , o � �.. � .� �� < � � . �.,_ , _ �,��, . f � � . , i � � �,,,ar H ?y ._. - � _ � $ �, r�,� ��;� � � • ,o f .' ' . i < �� • .,...�o. .,,..,. .....,�„ � i ,,m....„ae. . . �g �, �,.,.��.,. . . � �v- . � r � „,,.�.�., � . ` . , c "' ,�.. .�. ��S � �� 8 � � ,.. i ' . . ' .. � . . . " .,....,. .,,r � ...,vo.�.b � _,. w � ti .,......:, . � . . j �m , .. . � , � � . _ - �� . �. r..�.�.,,.- " � ��m��, ..� � _ L:�� ; � v .. ,� � v � ��i„�. � �� ¢� � ❑ � i � , .�, . = a s � � ;,�.,�.,� _ ,.M..�,.,, a� y y ; i ,,..� q � �f _. ._ i � � ,.. : � �, ,,... , _.� . � � � o . � � �� , � � . . ; ., - _ � . ' #� � ti m , � n- ,; � . �� L�J i �,.a , � ., f o'°�� a�� "� .�. � ...- �� . � � -.. . ..-..,�.._. �d ` �>, r i '"°^' ' �� ' � _ � � � i - � � � '"• . = a . ' � a . v�o+� .. A p F .. ., ,.. . ♦ : e R'. ' � �� c e ._ � x,.. N ` ( l.w:�'. I . . �� . .o � e'�� " � �,F ,:,2� 0 l� �\\'\ ��. - : ._ : � � . . .�.._. .�.. �� . _ .. ' ,. .. �.... ..� �� ...... �� . ... .' - ... �` I � L ._.._.._._._.._.._.._"_—___'�"_' ...9 ...-..,"mr . xo .,,� _ �' - � g �'^ ... ...:. _ —� � .�r I\'ISl1Ll I.1lI,I1 I '_ ,,.,..,. � Q�q... M� " - . I6 � �g � �e- \\ a ��.,�.., , : .,,., . . . ... i �� z�... r � e e,. s q + �• _ ��.g� � . : ; , , .,, .. . .. , � ._ , 8� - � � ��,o �� ! �s � .. ..�:.., „w .�, ,, . � . .. ,r ` i ,. � �t ..n.�,.,,,, '°.'� ��` 4 � Y _ - , m ,� �N ,- ;$ � � ,.. z `� � � � �� . � � , �� . ,. • ' � �,,� i. , , � ... s�`�� ,. -- �v �„ ,. '. � : . : �,., � -� a... A v . A � a + - _-% . pe •rn .+ +a ie. J n� � w if \ ., 6 € y _ s3os ; _ m � �.�.�. z g ..., . . � i n �.. .. q .. � - . � �� M e � . .�_ � � � � � , . . � • - , .�" Y i : .,., - � ._ �� n . � � ' ,, � ��°, i ¢ � .. . � �. �' '�'''� ° � � ,.. � ��1 •�, �i �� , �.. ,.,�.,�,- ,,..... _ .....,�. �� i�� .«..� ��F v rnn�r.n s ve �03 ;�\\\�� L � N or3 . . i�\. l � r� ' ,a..... _ .�.� < . �`%� (_.� >Y��,�A�' � � I� �l � � �� L F i.^�� . y N „ j�b � .. ��',.�\\\ „' _ v . „ — � �e� � _ Y, .n�.� . . .. ��I M �' � �\�\°� � � _ ,__ �� , y _ �] `� ,.� . ; � � � . . � �� ° � ,. � 'i �� e ..,. _ � ! � , �:�� € ; °� .� , � , , � ' � ; � . � .� . _ .. .�, � - � - � � . .a.�.,,, �� ' �� , �� , . . � : ,P� � , - _ � ..� r�s % �� ;*' V �' i �� „ � � - .,. � � , _ . . . �. �� . � ,� ` a,,.v _ a . •m � �. � � �� , � ,. ud k:_ N„ z �"' -- � - �- s . s . . . o,. [lL � �M . �' $$ a . . .. ' � � S .' I p �� 3 c' � x.s.i..n � �s� ^ A �•b' \ \�� i . � � r � I � "' O 1 .' 4 _T... f ,,.. .o..c . £ 5 . - ~ , � E ooe \\�� N tl 9Z �� `°`� ,,..,,� i . , � . � N , �.� ,�e�e e � t _ oa,n � � �� . � � l02�� ° y�j ° ... � .��....��.� N- s i 3+ �� . ,..w j. , i �� ..�o�.�,. �,�"►,�, . . �_ , ,�� €.� �' � , � , „. . .� ; . � i £ _ � E , , � .�� , ��_.:. � � ,��„ � �� ° .,.. � •«�..». � ,. q , ` '_ _ ---,.�._`�� „ � , �:� , ..��._ � ..>., R � � :p � �' r , � � „ � � � ,: _ � . �. �,, � m ■� � " ° = 5 � . _ _ . � �r m r w. � �„�' ..e .,.. � � � � � �� d .� � .�.,e'tl„ . . , �� ' _ � E �` i , a ,.,. , „ „r : ; . k • � � ,� .•e „a " � _ .-- ��0 � , O " . � t ve�M.� �r ;f e ' � � O N _ . 1 : ti, .t e m ; �. �.. �� a � Y � ,,... .�.n�.n �+ , * _ O �, w�M �5 >. s� � ...��,.. ,.. , .... i , / ' v r � . , # - �� ti�, ��sa� � i ? J � . .,, , ...,... �, ,. . s� � ' I ... ,� �� . . gt + ! . . � � �1� I � Yr W � 3s� ��1 - $� �� °� i =�- � �,` " q � �� i� 9 i � 3 ��¢: t' � �� . : ; .> ;` � � " > f# t�s� � � c � �,a � ' � ' ' � � . � . � � -. 3 � ... �� { � � __ � .� _ . : ,` ----_._.. _..--�- -.._.._.__.._.._.._� � ' - ; ,; „_,,. � � . _._._ _._:..� �,_ _�� ._.._..__._:' . .._.._.._.._ _.._. _..__..�_.�__.--.--..- .--- --._ ._.._. . �ma= •�,� s . .�...:�.i..r�w�� m E .._ i,.:. � �,�� .. ._ �� _.. .. . . ,._ _.. _._.. c�� Illl(1l\l I.I Itl .11l� - ' � ., � � �oa_`�e'q9 . . II -;i�i,l 4:E\�t I l�"I '� .. � a� o � ]�;Il.r 1 l l I 1 l �_ � � o��o�? �� C � � . � U 1 n V'n C� � � c a � � c �,�,.,., y � � Q g N !�"`",, O � � m � � � � � � � � N � 7 a r � c O o d O � " `° �° '' v� � w _ �. L` y Z m y � . � u� Z � a� Q . .. y � C N � T C � � N J a�i m E � � ' e_v N � @ T v � c� V `° R `° q � � m y�m .�> � � � v v t � � � v v ��a N C d � !a ` � � r � a�i � 2�N •'' 3 y y o � � d R rn a � N ? a�i fl. m � i c � a x o U c a L d � � � 2 � Z U d O � +�,, � � '+� Q U � fn a O � � ` O � 3 '8 'C � tl! a�.� � , ��'' ,.,�„ C� d W y n�'c� � d � 7 �+ G� M s s :;�t�� p m m�`o � � , � ' V ' � _ , � "� � 'Y' � O am?ay o % / -i, Sii��n ��m ��iaiii yi� � _ _ ___ ___.__._ �..� ,� _� ...__._ - � _ �^--�-^� � --- . '� � ,� / fiT �rj � ' �.�:. . -- � : . � '�,�_...� .:� ,,� - �.� ..�.�: r� _ �`�` - .� e.a ��o. �.. -.. <. - ..'�' _e,s^` �� _ i S$� . . N „. , � a I �r � �. ��,�,. � � � � . ..� � � .�Ptt , �m ��3 �� ;.� D ��m �-' � �� 3� y � �'�'� o�a �� <,��;. �� m J '�.,4 � .. i , `�a u i . �� , �� P �, ? �� v � , _ � ., . � �� ! �"d ' +'a"' ��," � < ''. ^` ! 4i i��a��is�u� ao xri� i �`� � , �------'---- —�- -w^` -'- r i �� . � _� �r�,e` �� , . � ,.„, a �� ... � _ s �;, . �� , _ � „ .,-� � g...« ` � bea g � . ��! ¢ �j � ' °4 ' � � •m� ..�.x.rv+ �' � �! `o ,:_ , ,\ ,. . � � o,..e^"`., .� � � , ,�.�_ .. .� .w € . a � � t' s'...a a`�_ . ., ' d 5 n • � „ � � d , . � �� . b.�.n. � '.. " ,,,,. " F ��hh., ,� .. . > � a` _? �' Y I I\'(14\1}147()21 . a°.p� ' Y .o . n.� , r t .. . : c �,� '_-�----yAkY,F�Yf.) �E b �w m � � � a . � � P � - , e � p � ._�V._'"__ "_'_.._. .._._.._.._.._.._.._.,,,..e.,-.._�. __ . .� . . .. 9 .,. .�.,. u.�� . i ` , .�. g� ' .. . ':k ..... , � � . e . .. � . 8 q a !�_ . o ., ' ; � r..r .,,,.,�,. � r e.�.� � . . � . a•p w.mmen (('�]� . .� � � �'�� 8 i � ^ � � � ..a.�� N� b� a� . `_""4 . . , I � .., . � � �'�.., - � �A P7 4 ; w..,.., " V�°+„�., � a � F g i � �! � i e° ,.. , . F .s •k �+ , z », ......, ��:� � � '``. ��h� ; 3 a � < i ' � � P �: s 3 ` a c�a'" £"` n'*s„ . " .n g • � n� � ., ,.„� , a s .. �,m . :� � � a»,�,.a .. .. � � •� � i .. ; , ,,, a ! ' � � � # e � .. �, „ . § . ' � � i S � ^ �.,.., �4 ` i � ,.� , a;; .aa. . _ . �� , „ ,.. � s � � • �,� � �..� ��° � e . . ,.. .,n . m � °. � i 's . . r . ��s , .x,, �y _ � 4 ., .�a� ; .nr .�o� W ' � �� , �� . . � � . . . . ' w , . . , o y p a - $ I c a 5 ` `� n.� 'y. . . r... � �d.. � < � .,,.e�.. ` '� ...�; - ,. � . ` . . � . .. ,..- " ' r.,v,,.., s � ' A N.. .., °r.,T� g•' �M ,� 1L . � �A 9 i' s �>. : � <. g • � � � . � . n i i . $ � : e ; € ' £ i�amm,•� � .y �c°W : � . � . {{ . ......o • 4 _ ta o ¢, � ...,..., .... fi � .�,m,. m .x . e� n, � .. . ��' � � c�a � �� ' �� ` 4'- v ' [' y� � � �N � � . .. ...� '� � 3 �S}.. �� i n.,m ,�.ro,,,.�. ,.,��.,.., ,,,...,... � . .._.._.._..� ��, ,,,�y� } „..o�;,.r.x. � ., . � , . �aM.M,v � ,. .,.. ,�,� E �. , �e o . ; � p{: �r R! � a . � �, ,. , •,e y4 _ �i^ �y �X i�R � , . . . 4, . i i ..e,,.�, 'rm.,.e I � E"� � '�� .. x ; �� ,„�.� "� o � . . t� ,, . .a "�r � �� .. � ...�� ,,:. ,,...�„� .. . ...,n.a. ...... . p p. 3 � � €Pe . . ., •y� '�,.. _ :� . � - a .,.��.,� . . i i : .> . , �. . .: , . . w , »��.., (��[,1,- r� s "��• � t �, � �.� , ,,,,� �� $ ��,..,.� � � ...v.,�� ' .� . ��,...� p � � .. . .' i. �� :. '<� � `� _. ' � � �S _ �� .'ro� �� i; ,� u. . < ,. � _ � : , � '� � ,. .�t �w ! "� � . """'s'. ..�. . ��.,� �- . .,._.._ _ .00h„�..,,,. � .. a ---- ,�,�., � . ... . ,. ,.�. .., ...,..,«�. �. ...� ,..,.. --- — �—`"-`� �-.--.-.._ �.. ,E.. . .-�.,.��:»,�.,«..�.,.�...,�.....d.e.......,..«. , ..,_ - '' .. w, � . T , , - 4 ` .- .._.._..1 , _,..�a.+.„+a�awn.a� ., „.s..M+.,�w °v 8� ....�. ...,,. , �� 3��x i' I\'ISAH.)�I��lf.1,1 I � � . *.^� � ,� � i I � ; � "R ' ': �° �.`. : �, _ � � . . �. E �... . ...��.» � �� .,�'• � - ��. �`� �� a � ,�,� �� F �- � . � .,,^�"" . � , � � F�.� � _ � i � ��.,, • , �.� »ry.�., S` � � � . v` ' ..-t-,F':"'""` --s_.�.. _� a . �� ..,.. ��.xt��,-a s' � ' � -, �> . ,.,„ :. j � �,.. �>� ��. = o� E� ,.,�. �.„,.„, � �^, �'I . . . _ , , } . 1 � . -.� � � s i � ��-rse . ,,.'' r ,:� - ��".�#➢ �� . �� , �'�� N � � r : . .. ...., . � , . f � � _ . � � fi ��. €� `"1 � k,.. i � . x k, . . �-� . )� , �,•* � �n I + �� ' "• " l : �n • . �---• _ �" g - M a,+in �,y.-lt'""�� ! ;. 4 s ., I�� r. � ` . # ,�-D• �� .; ;� , `y. �,.y�;," ` I = � �, .. � ; 3 � � �. i a �.° � � ,M.e., � . a.� � _� �,.�, ., ,�,fi, , ,��,..� • � �� _�'� � _ ...� ,.�, .... , ' _ � '' � E� i i ar � � '� a � �"^�� - �,,..� . �� w�"�,. � .,��,e_. �m t 3 � x .�. �� - � � �� - � �� -�� s � �� ; `'# rr�°' .. - ± r��;, cs e, .,,,.� , � � �T � ,i� ' _ . ��. �.��, � a��: j` :. ...o:m € '� � � _ . �,. ; i ��.� ��" a � a � . , � ; _ , . z : � °'�,�� f • j � � �� =� ,. � # — . , m LLv , .<,,, . _, e � _ , _ �� ... _ � ; � �` � �'�` , t "N �� , �.,.,..,,� � � , .,� j - � � , .. - .�..r.n,�.� �; I , �. .�. . �, , . .. .� �r :r , i _ .,,_ - j �a ,� �,. . - � �4 r. � •8 � . � .... ... . . ..J � f'r � . .. .. �� , .. ,.�. ... � ___. _ , , , � f . � � . . , _ E � � ,, ,,•. � � � �� _ f . � j _ ��. '' �,.�t a , .,�e,. : 2� w, i . � . . " ; $$�� a • � •: :� � . . a„„ „ M , i �. � . � :,- e . � . e� .,. . ,.. � ,-� 8 � f "'a a. � �y '� t" N'y . .,v.�m�o jS F� ,o . i Mp . r� � I�"' . �. i . . >.,v nn � I ' ___ '____... y...- '�t`3 y . . - .. .. . 'yE _ f .� . . y..v ��i,.e� . .a.. . � � ---�j .� .. .,..�..: ' � s:m �)� f ? _ 't u » . 'v°�b�v „ i a _ � . � < °x � „ u � . �� e �,..,,.o• . .. g - � x., �.,, . F y� ..... _ ." . ., ag � � � , � Q .- 0 ' ! ��. u . . �� a: .� +a' . ,.�. � .r , c. ...e.e �u x«v,�...�.iwwu 1�... `__ . S� °'°r.p,,,y i.. i ,.:,u4.v n ....,,. �., ; � � �� Z S � b ;i , ... x e . 3 �,.. . r �"� .., � � �I . f R$ F � . . � e. . , � W " s,� W.,, : ,, 7 ,.,,wrv.t . .,�wFr.�wa» o.��.dF�,> x...�a,,,� M.,.,�.,. „ .,.. m. ° . ` i �t�€ : . . _ . - ... ., 8� o . �� „� r y o � i ' �.j'�� . � �N.nr..Trvn i �v..�� . ..v,� j . .� ',` �� . d • .,,,.N�T4 d` ,e �.. aP . .. �... # " `� % �3 :�. r ••� P• }�� i I � ' �€� . �, . .. .. . ' . ' � ,.; : ..r . `'. '�vnr �''�i� ,j,,,, - . ,.. ,� x. . : � mi � s S 2 � F e,; .... 1 � ��o.i.p . ..a�a ' .�' i n ' . � : � �..,o z .. . „��, e �. � _, , V , � ,. f a A� .q , � _ . .",. .,,�..�, . . w...-H�^" � !� . .. m`t... t ::; � _ ��µ i .�.m,�. a � �� ",�„t�., �,,.. � •, . x,..��. , F 3 i , a , w,P _ ..,,� r �z � g u.,, � �° �« .».,»�. �.., q'�.� �"� g �:� � Q � .,.a, F s� = 3 � - aj a� _ � o a� . � .,-.. .�eawma' ''' .5. 6 � � # � e - ,�R � � . f.�.. . � ;f�n '' � • . s , , zr .... ,� ....: � �� i � . = � �:., .....��+ �. . � :m�e� a :� .. ; � J • ,. , j � �,..,.„�u �� ,� .�..,�_ �..A.,�w..,� � -- �� j � i .,� _ �� t �� I i �� 3 � �� . �, � � � ��i � � �'�`� �` � _e..,.o . . , � ,a : . e.,..a ..w,., �� j � ._--- ; . � s ,�� _ ��, , � ` _ a � ,,��.� A -- ; � '�� ,e�� . -, i ; � f �� , ,,.,. �,....�,, . � � , . __ � � � � � _ .. , ,�. � "°�,, a — � ,.� : ; � � � `i � - � � , F� - � j � .. �g � $i - m " - ;., _ . , . �, ^ � � � € ' �'� � �� „ di � _ q - , ... ,. � .._,,.,,,,., e u J � ` �� * Q �: : " w�� : o� �.,,� !.-� � -�-�-- --- --- �'--- �-----= ---�- ,.- -._._.._ ..-- --- ----,-4,�.:�� ,_ .,,,�,_> � i � & � � P � � � � - � � � oz � ._."'`� �'-��- � .��.�,-.� �. � _ �� € � �, . � . ,. , „ m _�_ ,��• �� ,�,��,� �� r� � i� , �="^a Il.� I��I\11�I �i Y�I\��I til.lc�l - . . a _U a�.il.� �, t< ��i�� g;� �=��o q> ' .., 0[7�°�° c y . s; �.mo�� ..0 Y . unc�n