06-24-19 PC Minutes 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � � ° �_` �,,,-�� -���"�
763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov ��a, y���o�
�l.f Y � �
Planning Commission a �Y
June 24,2019—7 pm
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CouncilChambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Goiden Valley Road
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ryan
Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: None
StafF present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily
Goellner, and Planning Intern Emily Anderson
Council Liaison present: None
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Johnson to approve the agenda of June 24, 2019, as submitted
and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Pockl to approve the June 10, 2019, minutes as submitted and
the motion carried unanimously.
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
Zimmerman referred to a location map of the subject property and explained the applicant's request to
operate an adult day care facility in an Industrial Zoning District. He stated that the existing building is an
18,991 sq. ft., multi-tenant building housing a construction office, computer support services, and
storage, and that the suite in question is 4,505 sq. ft. He added that there are currently 55 striped
parking spaces and a secure area for trucks and equipment
Zimmerman discussed the proposed use of the property which includes adult day care for up to 50
clients, with an average of 25 to 35 clients on site daily. He noted that licensing from the MN
Department of Human Services would be required and that there would be 7 full time employees, and 3
part-time consultants. The hours would be 8 am to 5 pm, Monday thru Friday, there would be two 15-
passenger vans and 4 minivans for transporting clients, there would be no food preparation on site, and
no external modifications would be made to the building.
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.
City of Gc�ld�n V�Iley F�I�nnin� �c�rrr�mi�siar� Re�uiar Me�ting 2
June 24, 2019— 7 pm
Zimmerman referred to the parking regulations and stated that 59 parking spaces are required. He said
there are currently 55 parking spaces plus the area in the secured lot so the deficit of 4 spaces can be
accommodated through proof of parking in the secure area along the east edge of the lot.
Zimmerman stated that the proposed use meets all of the factors of evaluation outlined in the City Code
so staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Baker asked who owns the building. Zimmerman stated that the construction company located in the
building owns the property. Baker asked about the guarantee regarding the proof of parking area and if
it is part of the applicant's lease. Zimmerman explained that staff is asking for the proof of parking
spaces as a fallback in case there is a parking need in the future.
Segelbaum asked if Conditional Use Permits typically list the hours of operation in the conditions of
approval, or if it is ok to leave it out. Zimmerman said it is up to the Planning Commission, but it is more
commonly a condition of approval if there are conflicts with neighboring properties or if there are
residential properties nearby. Baker said because of past experience with an adult daycare being used
evenings and weekends he thinks it might be smart to list the hours of operation in the conditions of
approval. Zimmerman noted that if the applicant's hours were to change at all they would have to go
through the amendment process. He added that if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the
hours listed in the application they could use those hours as their criteria for a condition of approval.
Segelbaum noted that the Building and Fire codes cap the occupancy at 50 people and asked if that
includes staff. Zimmerman stated that those codes list how many people can be in the building which
might be different than what the applicant's state license allows.
Sadhegi asked if there would be any exterior amenities. Zimmerman said no.
Johnson asked if ADA compliance is handled through the licensing process. Zimmerman said that would
be reviewed during the building permit application process.
Johnson asked how many Golden Valley residents would be served by this company. Zimmerman said
that was not known at this time.
Johnson asked about the common area shown on the floor plans. Zimmerman explained that area is the
common hallway space used by three suites to exit the building.
Pockl asked where the entrance to the building is and if vans dropping off and picking up would block
any entrances. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the site and noted that no entrances would be
blocked.
Saeng Kue, Applicant, said they have been located in north Minneapolis for the last 10 years and they've
decided to move to a quieter area. He said he would like Golden Valley residents to participate and
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3
June 24, 2019—7 pm
explained that there is a ramp access in the front of the building and a garage access they can use in the
winter.
Baker asked if their north Minneapolis location will continue. Kue said no.
Segelbaum asked Mr. Kue to explain how the passenger vans and minivans would be used. Kue explained
that in the morning they use the passenger vans to pick clients up and during the daytime they use the
minivans to bring clients to appointments and activities. He added that he has been observing the site
for approximately a month and has not noticed much traffic activity.
Segelbaum asked Mr. Kue how this location would differ from ones he has previously run. Kue said the
State will determine the number of clients they can have. He said they will probably have 25-30 clients
with 7 staff. He noted that in their Minneapolis location they had 5,500 square feet and had
approximately 40 clients.
Johnson asked Mr. Kue how many Golden Valley residents they would serve. Kue said he doesn't know
yet, but he will be talking to community organizations and churches about their services. Blum asked Mr.
Kue if Go�den Valley is part of their target market. Kue said they have a combination of clients.
Blum opened the public hearing.
Jon Halverson, 2401 Nevada Avenue, said he was recently at a City meeting regarding the creation of a
bike path on Nevada Avenue which is going to make parking an issue because parking would only be
allowed on one side of the street. He said he has had problems with people parking in front of his
building causing problems with entering and exiting which is dangerous so he thinks there could be a real
problem with visitors coming to this site because parking is already an issue.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Blum closed the public hearing.
Blum asked staff to comment on the parking on Nevada Avenue. Goellner stated that the Council will
consider a bike lane installation at their meeting in July. She said there is a proposal that would restrict
parking on the west side of the Nevada Avenue and the South side of Sandburg Road and there is
another proposal that would not remove any parking. She said when staff evaluates parking they only
consider spaces that are on the property itself, so the use in question would probably not have any
parking impacts on the street. She added that as far as the on-street parking issues discussed she is not
sure where that is being generated from so it's hard to say.
Baker said it might be worth adding a condition that requires a formal agreement with the applicant and
property owner regarding the four needed parking spaces. Segelbaum asked if anything could be done
regarding parking relative to the rest of the tenants in the building. Baker said he wants to be respectful
to the fact that they are dealing with this specific Conditional Use Permit and he doesn't want to solve
other parking problems as a part of this request.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4
June 24, 2019— 7 pm
Brookins stated that he would Ieave the parking considerations as recommended. He said that if this
space was used as by right office space the parking requirement would be 18 parking spaces. In this case,
10 are required which leaves eight extra spots compared to what could be there. Segelbaum asked if by
right uses still have to show they have sufficient parking. Zimmerman said the Zoning Code does require
a minimum number of parking spaces and when new buildings are built or some Planning action is
required it is easy to determine parking, but it is difficult to track each specific use in each building,
especially in multi-tenant buildings.
Blum said the next concern was about visitors to this site adding to the parking conditions. Brookins said
he thinks this building is better designed than others that have a similar use and he feels comfortable
recommending approval.
Baker referred to the hours of operation and said it would be good to have some idea of what the
applicant's hours are going to be. Segelbaum suggested a condition that allows their hours to be 7:30 am
to 6 pm. Blum said the normal operating hours he heard the applicant discuss were 8:30 am to 4 pm.
Johnson said the applicant should abide the hours they listed in their application because they should
know what's best for their business. Baker said when they described their hours they may not have
known there could be restrictions placed on them.
Blum referred to a map showing surrounding properties. He noted that there are some residential
properties to the southwest and asked how far away those properties are from the subject property.
Zimmerman said he didn't know but there are trees, railroad tracks, and another building in between so
he would guess the residential properties were approximately 400 feet away. Blum stated that past
complaints have been of night time uses near residential areas so he thinks it is relevant and reasonable
to ask for operating hours based on that.
Pockl asked for clarification on what hours of operation are being recommended. Mr. Kue said that as a
service organization they sometimes work late or early and have occasional celebrations, but based on
their current facility their normal operating hours would be from 8 am to 5 pm.
Blum asked about the earliest and latest times clients are at the facility. Kue said most of their clients are
dropped off between 8:30 and 9 am and leave around 3 to 3:30 pm.
Baker asked Mr. Kue if 7 am to 6 pm would accommodate all of their activities. Kue said yes.
Segelbaum said he would be interested in limitations on the hours when they have clients, and not
limitations on the hours in which they can operate their business or have an occasional evening activity.
He noted that there are noise ordinances and other regulations that businesses are also subject to. Baker
said he doesn't want to say they can only have clients between 8 am to 5 pm. Segelbaum said he would
recommend 7 am to 6:30 pm with no other limitations. Johnson reiterated that he thinks the City should
give the applicant the hours he asked for(8 am to 5 pm) and said it is not the Planning Commissions role
to set the applicant's hours. Brookins said he doesn't think the Planning Commission is trying to set the
applicant's hours they are trying to limit when they can't operate.
City +�f Caald�n V�liey F'I�nning C:omrr�issie�n Regul�r PV1e�tin� 5
June 24, 2019— 7 pm
Blum asked Johnson if there is value in being more expansive as a way to minimize bureaucratic
involvement and staff time by giving a larger, equally acceptable timeframe to the applicant upfront and
saving a little bit on resources anticipating there may be a change even though there might not be.
Johnson said that is the cost of doing business and they should make sure applicants are well versed in
what they ask for. He said he is really leery to tell an applicant what their hours can be and that they
should recommend approval based on what is asked.
Pockl said when they discuss expanding hours they aren't basing it on the applicant's history and
understanding. She said the Planning Commission has a history that they are basing recommendations
on and are trying to prevent reoccurrences of things that have happened previously. She said that
warrants some consideration in order to prevent the applicant having to come back to request additional
hours, or having incidents of applicants working outside their permitted hours.
Segelbaum referred to condition number two in the staff report where it states "...must serve no more
than 50 clients" and said he assumes that means at any one time. Zimmerman clarified that the applicant
can have not more clients than his state license allows.
MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit 169 allowing for an Adult Day Care Facility in the Industrial Zoning District at
2300 Nevada Avenue North, subject to the following findings and conditions. Commissioner Johnson
voted no.
Findin�s:
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 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 Density: Standard met. The number of daytime persons 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 Housing Policy: Not applicable.
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 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.
City s�f�t�lden VaII��F �lanning Cammission �e�;ul�r Me�tin�; �;
June 24, 2019—7 pm
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 Health, Safety, and Welfare: Standard conditionally met. If
the limits on 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.
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 at any one time. 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. The permitted operating hours for day care services with clients on site shall be 7 am to 6 pm
Monday thru Friday.
5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with
authority over this development.
Discussion—Mixed Use Zoning District
Anderson reminded the Commission that they have had several discussions regarding the proposed new
Mixed Use Zoning District and that this discussion will focus on impervious surface regulations, Designed
Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA), and usable open space.
Anderson noted that some of the factors to consider include: current green space statics and trends in
Golden Valley, avoiding PUDs and allowing more uses by right, walkability, stormwater/environmental
concerns, and trade-offs between impervious surface, setbacks, and height regulations.
Anderson stated that current impervious surface regulations range from 25%to 90% in the Zoning Code.
The current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District allows a maximum of 65%, if in a PUD the maximum is 90%.
She explained that for the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District the TOD consultants have
recommended that Subdistricts A and 6 have a 90% maximum, and Subdistrict C have an 80% maximum.
Anderson referred to usable open space requirements and stated that the current I-394 Mixed Use
Zoning District requires lots over one acre in size to have 15% open space. She stated that staff would
like feedback regarding the current City Code definition of usable open space and the possibility of
requiring a minimum percentage of Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA).
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7
lune 24, 2019—7 pm
Anderson showed the Commissioners a table of existing impervious surface conditions and stated that
most of the Zoning Districts fall below the average percentage of impervious surface allowed except for
the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District which has an average of 73.07% due to the number of car
dealerships with large lots in that district.
Anderson showed the Commissioners several photos of various PUDs and discussed the amount of
impervious surface on each one. She said staff would like feedback about what the impervious surface
regulations should be.
Blum referred to the questions posed in the staff report. The first question is if the impervious surface
limit should be raised from 65% and if it should differ by Subdistrict.
Johnson said when he looks at what the consultants recommend versus what the City currently has he
thinks they should find a comfortable number with what the City already has, limit it there and not go
with the consultant's recommendation.
Segelbaum said he would be in favor of allowing an increase in the amount of impervious surface
allowed because he thinks the point of this this particular zoning district is to allow more density. Blum
asked Segelbaum if he was saying that he is in favor of allowing more imperious surface as long as that
means buildings and not more parking lot area. Segelbaum said he's not sure, but he would be more
inclined to allow someone to have a bigger building.
Baker said the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes resilience and resilience in the face of climate change
means dealing with increased rainfall so he doesn't think the City should be decreasing its ability to deal
with rainfall by allowing more impervious surface, they should be encouraging more green space. He said
it's interesting that there are plenty of developments that managed to have a relatively low percentage
of impervious surface.
Zimmerman noted that there are different ways to measure such as using lot coverage by building.
Goellner added that they could keep the lot coverage number just below the amount impervious surface
allowed which would send a message that the amount of surface parking has to be kept low, or they
could also consider allowing a maximum size for a parking lot. Blum said he thinks they are trying to
accomplish the walkability goal and they do that with a certain amount of increase in building size on
each lot. Brookins said he is struggling to understand how someone would be able to meet the minimum
parking requirements and still get to a lot with X amount of impervious surface, the correct setbacks, the
allowed height, etc. so it would be helpful to see how all the requirements would work on a site.
Blum asked if parking regulations may change in this district. Zimmerman said they have the option to
set the parking ratio however they want. Baker said there are innovative ways to deal with parking that
don't create more impervious surface such as parking beneath buildings which is much better than water
storage beneath buildings.
t€ty af C�calden V�i4ey Plarrnin� �or�missic�r� �e�ul�r Meetir�� �
lune 24, 2019—7 pm
Brookins said he is not in favor of reducing parking requirements. He said he thinks it would be poor
planning not to expect people to come to these areas in cars and not having adequate parking would
affect surrounding areas/neighborhoods as well.
Baker said he thinks it was a failure in the past to allow a strip of green space along the edges of a
property and he really thinks pressure should be put on developers to have public open space. Blum
asked Baker if he thinks perimeter plantings enhance the walkability of a space. Baker said they do make
boulevard areas more comfortable places to walk, but he thinks public green space is very desirable and
if the City is zoning these areas Mixed Use one of the uses should be DORA space.
Pockl asked if perimeter plantings are considered a buffer zone or if it is considered green space.
Goellner said it would be both pervious space and a buffer. Pockl asked if there is any way to get more of
a cohesive green space by stating that that buffer zones while pervious, don't count toward DORA. Baker
stated that a lot of it is about design and there can be conditions in the Zoning Code that help make
usable spaces.
Segelbaum said he thought the vision for this district was for smaller lots, and smaller businesses. He said
he doesn't know how there is going to be concentrated, usable open space unless the property is an acre
or larger in size. He said he agrees with Commissioner Baker's thoughts about usable spaces but for
other zoning districts, not the Mixed Use Zoning District.
Brookins said he is comfortable with the existing definition of usable open space being applied to all
properties. He said he thinks the definition leaves some room for interpretation and staff can help
people meet the definition when dealing with a difficult property. He added that he is comfortable with
a 12%or 15% DORA and he is also comfortable raising the percentage of impervious surface allowed.
Baker stated that everybody who develops in Golden Valley has to pay a park dedication fee and
suggested using that money to dedicate a property within the Mixed Use District to be usable open
space by a shared effort of all the participants in the Mixed Use District. Blum said he doesn't think the
City will be able to force private property owners to develop all of the properties in a district at once so
he thinks they need to prioritize what is important. He added that there would be a lot of effort and
expense on the City's part that would go into using park dedication fees to buy, develop, and maintain
property. Segelbaum agreed. Baker said they are trying to create benefits for the City.
Sadeghi said if the goal is to promote development on smaller lots in Mixed Use areas they are going to
have to increase the impervious surface limits. He referred to the impervious surface calculations for
PUDs that was part of the staff report and noted that for all of the examples that were under 60%
impervious, only five of them are below 100,000 square feet in lot size. He said he thinks that would
bring the impervious surface requirements closer to the TOD consultant's recommendation of 90%.
Baker stated that small lot owners could be required to contribute to something off their site to help
accomplish pervious surface goals.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 9
lune 24, 2019—7 pm
Johnson said the number that stands out to him is 75% and questioned if that can be modeled to see
where it takes them. He said that way they can look at some numbers and adjust accordingly. Segelbaum
said he would like to see that and he would also like to see the numbers within the context of what was
envisioned for this district.
Anderson asked the Commissioners what they value most about creating a Mixed Use Zoning District and
what they are trying to accomplish.
Segelbaum asked if they have defined what they wanted out of the Mixed Use Zoning District and if so
could they be reminded of it.
Baker said walkability is his highest priority. Sadeghi said to make it a desirable, walkable area there
needs to be some retail, street presence, and smaller businesses to engage with. Blum asked Sadeghi if
he is in favor of increasing the amount of impervious surface allowed only if it is for buildings. Sadeghi
said he have to think about it more and how that would affect the parking regulations, but he knows that
subterranean parking is extremely expensive and may make development less of a possibility.
Brookins said it might help to separate the different Subdistricts because they are located in very
different parts of the City. Segelbaum said modeling in the different Subdistricts might be helpful.
Goellner asked the Commissioners how they felt about giving a height bonus for someone who keeps the
impervious surface amount low. Pockl questioned how much that would over complicate the Zoning
Code. Goellner said the City might get more green space, but might also be allowing buildings that are
taller than wanted and residents typically have strong feelings about height. Brookins said he could see a
height bonus applying to certain Subdistricts. Johnson said he would support considering a height bonus.
Blum said he likes the idea of trade-offs.
Blum noted that the last question staff wanted feedback on was if half of the side and rear yard setback
area should be required to be maintained as a buffer zone. Pockl said yes, she thinks that makes sense.
Blum said he likes the idea of buffering a surface parking lot. Pockl asked why the setback requirements
range from 20 to 100 feet. Goellner said it depends on what type of property is next to it.
--Short Recess--
Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
Goellner stated that the Council will be discussing bike lanes and their next Council/Manager meeting.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Ftegular Meeting 1Q
June 24, 2019—7 pm
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 9:03 pm.
-��
f /:' �-°�
,
.� ;��- 1 �..
, � � _ �.._�._.------.
��
�...� �.
� Adam Brookins, Secretary
Lis ittman, Administrative Assistant