pc-minutes-jan-27-20
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
1. 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, Ari
Prohofsky, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker to approve the agenda of January 27, 2020, as
submitted and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum, asked for a motion to approve the minutes from January 13, 2020.
Commissioner Johnson requested an edit to page six when he referenced the bylaws for the
Planning Commission, the perceived direction of the group, and the environmental exception.
As a result, there was a consensus to strike the following section from the January 13th, 2020
minutes:
Zimmerman mentioned the zoning chapter in the city code creates an overlap in responsibility as it states:
Sec. 113‐2. ‐ Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate land use within the City, including the
location, size, use, and height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings on lots, and
the density of population within the City for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, order, convenience, and general welfare of all citizens of the City.
Therefore, this topic is relatable to the Planning Commission as defined by Sec. 113‐2.
Johnson requested an edit to page five, within the tobacco ordinance item. Johnson requested adding to
public record his vocalization that adding draft language and edits of an ordinance was not relevant to
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
2
the Planning Commission but that the final language was. Johnson restated that he disagreed with
providing the draft language as that is policy related and not Planning Commission related.
As a result, the following section was added for clarity:
Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has already approved licensing changes related to tobacco sales and
Campbell responded affirmatively and reminded the commissioners the information is in their agenda packet.
Based on the fact that the license and ordinance changes were approved, Johnson asked why the redlined
draft document was presented to the Planning Commission. Campbell responded that he added the draft so
the commissioners could see what the old language was and what the new approved language is. He expanded
that the Planning Commission is not approving any language changes in the licensing or the ordinance.
Johnson made a final comment that the group was not presently discussing the changes in the ordinance or
the licensing requirements.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the January 13,
2019, minutes after edits and the motion carried.
4. Continued Informal Public Hearing – CUP Amendment
Applicant: Health Care Plus, Inc.
Address: 800 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To modify an existing condition that limits the use of Boone Ave for loading,
unloading, and parking of buses and vans
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the Commission that the following presentation and
conversation is a continuation of one started in December 2019. By way of background, the operators
are requesting an amendment to the current CUP in order to modify a condition that prohibits the use of
Boone Ave for loading, unloading, and parking of vehicles related to the adult day care business. This
amendment to the CUP occurred in 2018, due to safety concerns, and required loading, unloading, and
parking of vans and buses to take place in the parking lot.
Zimmerman continued that after a tour and conversations, the applicant has stressed the need for
Boone Ave access to continue due to restrictions imposed by the parking lot and the building access
point from the lot. The applicant has indicated that 26 buses/vans arrive on Boone Avenue in the
morning over a period of about an hour (7:50 am to 8:55 am). The timing is staggered so that only two
vehicles arrive at a time; it takes 5‐10 minutes to unload each vehicle. In the afternoon, 20 buses/vans
arrive between 1:40 and 2:45 pm to pick up clients. During the day, approximately 8 vehicles depart and
return between the hours of 10:00 am and 12:30 pm; in the summer, additional field trips occur
between 10:00 am and 1:30 pm. Each of these individual trips require a bus or van to be parked on
Boone Avenue for approximately 30 minutes.
After laying out zoning and engineering considerations, Zimmerman stated staff supports the request to
continue loading and unloading on the east side of Boone Ave, with the caveat that future restrictions
may be imposed in light of the pending conversation around on‐street bicycle lanes. In 2020 it is likely
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
3
parking will be removed from Boone because on‐street bike lanes will be added and staff believes it’s
advantageous to the applicant to plan for an area to load/unload on site.
Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the amended CUP, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The adult day care shall be limited to 350 clients, as specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services license issued August 1, 2019.
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and
the Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm,
Monday thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted
in the Zoning Code.
5. Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations, all vans and buses shall be loaded
and unloaded along the east side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses shall be loaded,
unloaded, or parked along the west side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be
parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south of
the building along the drive aisle.
6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on‐site without first obtaining the proper
license or permit.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable
to the Physical Development Department.
8. The applicant shall provide an on‐site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Zoning, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall become
a part of these requirements.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
Failure to comply with one of more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP.
Commissioner Baker asked when the CUP amendment with the modified condition regarding loading
and unloading was added. Zimmerman responded in October/November of 2018. Baker followed up
with asking if staff now thought that amendment was a mistake. Zimmerman responded that in 2018
staff recommended limiting loading and unloading to the east side of Boone and the Commission
adopted the broader parking lot restriction. Baker reiterated his question and Zimmerman responded in
the affirmative and without findings of a safety issue, staff recommends approval of the current
amendment.
Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned previous confusion on if the applicant was the business owner or
the property owner. He followed up by asking if the CUP should more clearly state which owner is
responsible for the conditions. Zimmerman responded that in a situation where a building has multiple
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
4
tenants, either the property or business owner can apply. Both the property owner and the operator are
present for the CUP Amendment agenda item.
Zimmerman continued on to specific conditions mentioned by the commissioner and gave examples of
amended word choices to assist in clarification.
Segelbaum followed up by asking if the operator were to leave, would the CUP follow the operator or
the property. Zimmerman stated that the CUP is filed with the county so it’ll stay at the property. In the
event that there is a violation, the property owner is responsible.
If the business owner is the one to apply for a CUP, then the property owner signs it, stating
acknowledgement. Therefore either entity can apply but the property owner is responsible for violations
to the CUP.
The discussion continued into the cap for the number of clients at the facility and who determines that
number. Staff reminded the commissioners that previous conditions stated the Department of Human
Services would determine that client cap as they’re issuing the operating license. The cap on the
operator’s current license is 350 clients; staff said they hadn’t considered reducing that cap to then
create the city’s own limit, but rather looked into further enforcing the current cap. This conversation
evolved to addressing the operating hours; the city’s condition is a weekday window of 7:30‐5:30 and
the operator is choosing to operate from 8‐4:30 weekdays.
Chair Blum invited the applicant and operator to make comments.
Christine Eid, attorney on behalf of Healthcare Plus, introduced herself and then introduced Inessa
Marinov from Healthcare Plus, and Randy Engel, the architect for the same company. Eid reminded the
commissioners that they were before the Commission in December 2019 and after a series of poignant
questions raised, they accepted a continuance to collect the necessary information to reappear. Eid
thanked staff for their work through this process and the report presented before the Commission. Eid
went on to address the discussed violation to the CUP granted in 2007 to allow for an adult daycare
facility in the 800 Boone Ave building. Eid went on to read Golden Valley City Code as it pertains to adult
daycare facilities and concluded that all clients at this operation qualify without further evaluation. Part
of the daily accommodations include providing the most accessible and shortest path from the buses to
their daily activities. This accommodation necessitates utilizing the east side of Boone for bus drop offs
and pick‐ups.
Eid went on to address the violation to the CUP granted in 2007. This was not an operator violation, but
lead to an amendment in 2018 to prohibit drop‐off/pick‐up on the east side of Boone, which did directly
and negatively impact the operator. Eid addressed the conditions listed in the staff presentation and
their team agrees to work with city staff and the planning commission to cap the cliental at 350. The
team would like to amend condition number five due to its broad nature and would like to participate in
conversations with the city to ensure a bike lane may co‐exist with regular drop‐offs and pick‐ups.
Randy Engel, Healthcare Plus Architect, presented a map of the 800 Boone building and listed minimal
physical characteristics for an adult day care facility. Engel elaborated on the building structure and its
split between businesses, he added that not every door to the building equates direct access to
Healthcare Plus. Engel went on to explain the space requirements to accommodate the current cliental
as well as the space options already considered by the operator in order to accommodate future possible
clients.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the team has discussed edits to the fifth condition with city staff and
how they concluded the line item “Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations,” meant removal
of vehicle access due to a bike lane. Eid responded that while she doesn’t specifically know that is what it
means, she understands a bike lane on Boone is being discussed and would like her team to be part of
that conversation. Eid went on to state that she knows the City has full right to the right of way but
currently she would like to see that condition item be silent.
Commissioner Brookins asked what the future intent is for the number of people being served. The
operator responded that the intent is to serve the cap number of people, per the license granted by the
Department of Human Services. The company has the staff, space, and met requirements to meet the
needs to serve 350 people. Currently the organization serves 241 clients.
Blum noted that the required public hearing for this item occurred in December of 2019 and at the time
of this meeting, attendees of the meeting consisted of: City staff, Commissioners, Applicant and team,
and City Council Member. Segelbaum made a motion to open the floor for a public hearing and at 8:19
pm, Chair Blum formally opened the floor for a public hearing. No comments were made and the hearing
was closed.
Segelbaum commented that originally tabling this item was so the applicant and City staff could come to
a compromise. He believes the applicant has a point about the condition they addressed and
commented that the City Attorney may be the best person to address it. With that in mind, Segelbaum
believes it may be premature for the Planning Commission to address the agenda item. Baker and
Brookins echoed Segelbaum. Segelbaum asked for the time limit on responding to the applicant and
Zimmerman responded that it needed to be to City Council by February 22nd or the applicant would need
to agree to an extension in writing. Brookins commented that he’d like to make a determination today
and that will give staff time to make recommendations when this item is presented to City Council.
Commissioner Pockl echoed this statement. Commissioner Baker commented that putting a transition
plan in place for the applicant when a bike lane occurs may be beneficial.
The conversation continued on to the possibility of capping the clients at a number below the cap
provided by the MN Dept. of Human Services. Concerns about this Commission’s authority to override
the Dept. of Health’s cliental cap was raised. Commissioner Sadeghi pointed out that the concern for this
committee was traffic related and therefore instead of capping the client number, could client
transportation be reconfigured so the number of drop‐offs could be capped. Staff replied that it’s
possible but there is concern about who would enforce that cap on vehicles.
This conversation moved on to condition five, as addressed by the applicant.
The applicant/operator chimed in and added that during the architect’s presentation, he showed that
open space for new clients is in the back of the building. Therefore, any addition of clients, will be loaded
and unloaded in the parking lot by way of following the operator’s policy of providing the most
accessible and shortest path from the buses to their daily activities. An increase in clients will not cause a
direct impact on Boone Ave. Blum stated that based on the drawing provided, it appears the capacity
will increase in the front of the building, directly accessible by Boone Ave.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
6
Commissioner Johnson stated that according to the Secretary of State Website, all the organizations in
800 Boone Ave are related to one another. Because of that, it’s disingenuous for the applicant to assert
that there’s nothing to be done, internally, to accommodate the conditions. Johnson added that it seems
within the purview of the Planning Commission to discuss condition five and if the City Attorney
determines that’s inaccurate, then the Commission should be given a finding to support that.
Zimmerman asked the Commission to address the two questions posed:
1. If the Commission was interested in amending the condition to allow or not allow use of the east
side of Boone for loading and unloading.
2. Regardless of that choice, is there any consideration for a cap on the number of clients to be
served, even if it’s lower than the current number of clients allowed on their residence.
Regardless of the choice there should be reasonable findings to support the decision.
Baker stated he’s opposed to revising condition five as requested by the applicant. Blum is concerned
about loading and unloading on the west side of the street, crossing the street for this cliental is
inherently dangerous. It’s reasonable to restrict loading/unloading to the east side of the street. Pockl
echoed Blum’s statement and added that the loading/unloading may occur on the street but to
encourage use of the parking lot.
Commissioners continued their conversation on if they should cap the number of clients aside from the
current DHS license the applicant holds. The conversation moved back to the impact of loading and
unloading of vehicles on Boone and what the impact of the city is and evolved on to if a traffic study
would help create a solution. Pockl circled back to the original recommendation and stated that the
commission still hasn’t shown findings to support forbidding loading/unloading on Boone. Brookins
added that car dealerships are not allowed to load and unload on the street in front of the business.
Blum noted a parking restriction on Boone based on its proximity to Hwy 55 is reasonable.
MOTION made by Baker, to accept the recommendations of city staff with the exception that condition
five is not included; to prohibit loading and unloading on Boone. Motion was seconded by Brookins, with
an amendment to return some language from the 2007 CUP regarding client numbers to be determined
by DHS and approved by the City. Brookins suggested that cap be determined at 350. Baker accepted
that amendment to his motion. Zimmerman added that the commission can’t strike condition five but
can choose to not accept the amended language to condition five.
Johnson suggested to remove the first sentence in the condition and change no parking on the west side
of Boone to say entirety of Boone. Baker withdrew his motion. Blum asked for a new motion.
MOTION made by Johnson to accept the recommendations made by staff, regarding the CUP, with the
exception of condition 5, to then look like this:
5. Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations, all vans and buses shall be loaded
and unloaded along the east side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses shall be loaded,
unloaded, or parked along the west side entirety of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
7
may be parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located
south of the building along the drive aisle.
Brookins seconded this motion. Approval of the motion went to vote and was failed 3‐4.
Ayes: Baker, Brookins, Johnson
Nays: Blum, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Based on that denial, Blum asked for a further motion.
MOTION made by Blum to accept staff recommendation and approve the CUP application and to not
amend condition 1 but to amend condition 2 to replace the word “by” with “from”. Condition five is
accepted with edits, so condition five reads:
5. Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations, all vans and buses shall may be loaded
and unloaded along the east side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses shall be loaded, unloaded,
or parked along the west side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be parked in the angled
parking stalls, or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south of the building along the drive
aisle, or on the east side of Boone Ave.
Segelbaum seconded this motion and the motion was approved 4‐3.
Ayes: Blum, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Nays: Baker, Brookins, Johnson
Zimmerman stated the February 18th City Council meeting will receive this information.
5. DISCUSSION – Narrow Lots
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, presented a summary of the public forum held at Golden
Valley City Hall, on January 16th, 2020.
Zimmerman listed the specific items City Council directed to the Planning Commission.
Investigate possible modifications to the City Code for narrow lot development
Focus on lots 50’ wide or less but note ideas that might apply more broadly
Involve outside experts – realtors, architects, and builders
Solicit resident feedback
Aim to bring forward recommendations before the spring building season
Zimmerman followed with a list of items already addressed and presented the Commission with a
revised timeline of events. City Council will hold a public hearing on this topic on April 7th.
Public Forum Summary:
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
8
Divided into three parts
1. Overview of study
2. Small group discussion
a. City Staff provided a few questions as conversation starters.
3. Large group report out and Q&A
a. Commonly raised issues revolved around height restrictions, setbacks, impact on
residents, green space and trees.
Next steps include addressing non‐zoning regulations and policy questions that arose at the meeting
and looking at the purview of the BZA for variances to ensure consistency.
Commissioner Baker commented that height restrictions and the resulted shading of neighbors
seems to be a top concern. Baker revisited the comments from a local builder on the public forum
panel who suggested height restriction were possible while introducing dormers for space. Baker
stated that it seems possible to find a solution that won’t restrict the purchase of and building on
narrow lots while also ensuring quality of life for neighboring residents. Commissioner Pockl echoed
this statement and asked staff for optional solutions versus the Commission inventing their own
ideas for solutions. Zimmerman presented a list of such options.
Develop language around incentivizing reduction in height in exchange for dormer space
Increase some side yard setbacks
Lower maximum lot coverage and/or impervious percentages to preserve open space
Eliminate two stall garage requirements similar to R2 single‐family zoning regulations
Reduce existing secondary front yard setbacks on corner lots in order to eliminate need for
variances
Baker mentioned the desire to require the preservation of old trees in conjunction with
developments. Pockl asked how many houses on narrow lots have alley access and what the process
to construct an alley is. Zimmerman responded he can provide that information but that public and
builder feedback shies away from creating alleys. Chair Blum stated that bringing BZA into alignment
with resident preferences is a priority. In conjunction, there are points to consider with
comprehensive plan consistency, zoning elements, and essential character elements that are all
reflected in City ordinances. Blum stated that the setback consideration he’s gravitating towards are
larger than historically seen: 10 ft setbacks on a 40 ft wide lot. This considerations seems consistent
with resident feedback while setting the city up for flexibility in development in the future. Blum
continued that while incentivizing houses to reduce height is reasonable, he suggests incentives to
reduce tax parcel division of larger lots all together. Commissioner Brookins stated that he thinks the
setbacks are satisfactory but that the focus should be height requirements, building envelope, and
neighborhood character preservation. Commissioner Segelbaum stated the need for precise
language and the clear differentiation between subdivision and tax parcel division.
Television portion of the meeting concluded at 10:06pm
‐‐Short Recess‐‐