pc-agenda-dec-14-20REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the
City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast cable
channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting
code 177 896 2072. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment sections by
calling 763‐593‐8060 and following the automated prompts.
Additional information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For
technical assistance, please contact the City at 763‐593‐8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov.
If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement
consideration.
1.Call to Order
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Approval of Minutes
November 23, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
4.Informal Public Hearing – Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision
Applicant: CityLine Homes Inc.
Addresses: 7324 Harold Ave S
5.Informal Public Hearing – CUP 750 Boone Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: GNP Development, on behalf of Blue Pearl Veterinary Clinic
Addresses: 750 Boone Ave N
–End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 177 896 2072.
6.Council Liaison Report
7.Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings
8.Other Business
9.Adjournment
December 14, 2020 – 7 pm
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,
2020, all Planning Commission meetings held during the emergency were conducted
electronically. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were
able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on
CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Lauren
Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Baker, to approve the agenda
of November 23, 2020. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from November 9, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve
minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Discussion – Modifying the Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District to Allow
Rowhouses
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started the presentation by reminding Commissioners this
is the second time addressing this subject. He went int to detail on reviewing R‐2 regulations and
the potential for adding rowhouse regulation to existing R‐2. Staff looked at surrounding cities to
review their language, and staff didn’t find any specific to rowhouses. Staff researched cities out of
state and included details from Denver and Cincinnati in Commissioner packets. Zimmerman
displayed and reviewed a chart with great detail on current R‐2 regulations and potential rowhouse
regulations. After reviewing each line, Zimmerman displayed a rowhouse image from Denver, CO
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
2
with three side by side units. The image illustrates height and setback regulations. A second image
of a rowhouse was displayed with slightly different height and setback regulations to consider.
Zimmerman went on to Zero Lot Line Homes and discussed alterations to the subdivision
regulations. Images of current side by side units in Golden Valley were displayed for clarity.
Staff asked for feedback and direction on what to explore further that can help staff draft
formal language.
Commissioner Orloff asked what the pros/cons were of having units limited to 3‐4 side by side
or going up to 6. Zimmerman responded that buildings get larger with the greater number of
units and that’s something to consider, especially when looking at integration in a
neighborhood. Minimum unit width is 20 feet and once 4‐6 units are next to each other, it
becomes a very long building.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked how much Commissioners should factor in typical lot width in
this discussion and if driveways are permitted in the setbacks of a rowhouse. Zimmerman
stated he looked along Douglas and most of those lots are 80 feet wide so it would be ideal to
purchase two lots side by side for developing. Lots along Winnetka are about 100 feet each and
while 2 are needed, there may more room for additional units. Regarding driveways, they’re
allowed in the side yard setback as long as there’s 3 feet of pervious surface between the paved
area and the side lot line.
Commissioner Johnson mentioned R‐2 and the transitional nature of that zoning. He added
that the images appear to be townhomes scaled down and he understood R‐2 to satisfy the
need for more density than an R‐1 but not feel like an R‐3. He elaborated that different
setbacks to signal that transition may be beneficial. Zimmerman added that this zoning will still
be governed by max density allowed by the land use, in R‐2 that’s 8 units per acre, R‐3 has a
much higher max density. Zimmerman added that the exact setback numbers should be
discussed and that R‐2 will be transitional in that it’s not quite single family (R‐1) and not quite
an apartment (R‐3). Chair Blum asked about potential visual buffers and considering style
recommendations so the transition to R‐2 units is less abrupt. Zimmerman stated there are
some vegetated buffer requirements for some parking lots, while those requirements are not in
R‐1, they can be added to R‐2. Staff is also open to prescriptive styling/architecture to ensure
the rowhouses fit in the aesthetic of the neighborhood. Commissioner Sadeghi asked about
garages in the rear and how pervious coverage limits will be met if there isn’t front access. The
conversation moved on to preventing massing of vehicles on the street, how best to provide
garages on rowhouses, and driveway possibilities.
Zimmerman asked the Commissioners about height restrictions and the potential for increasing
them to accommodate tuck under garages. The conversation revolved around most
Commissioners feeling comfortable with the proposed heights, Commissioner Johnson asked
that they explore a stipulation of increased height being a result of a tuck under garage. He
added he’s like to avoid the added height as a by right and the property then having a detached
garage. This topic turned into a discussion about setbacks and height potentially shadowing R‐1
homes. The discussion returned to the idea of R‐2 as a transition area between R‐1 and R‐3.
Staff expressed perception that it is more to fill a gap where there’s an unmet need at the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
3
moment. The conversation continued on this topic and R‐2 being a transition between
corridors. Commissioners discussed R‐2 location and creating corridors or pockets of R‐2
zoning. Staff clarified the three locations being discussed in the 2040 plan.
Recommendation from the Commission is not required at this time.
5. Discussion – 2020 Land Use/Zoning Study – Commercial Uses
Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded the group that the purpose of this discussion was to
update the zoning code to match the land use policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Campbell reviewed the use types as well as provided a table to describe, in detail, old
categories and proposed new categories.
Commissioner Segelbaum reviewed permitted uses and asked about consolidation of
categories, specifically the clothing category and asked about shoes or accessories. Campbell
responded that while reviewing previous materials for this item, he notices that accessories
were separate from clothing.
Commissioner Johnson disagreed with removing trade schools and training centers from
Commercial districts. He added those categories lean more towards being service orientated
and not just educational, even though they say “training” in the title. Johnson added he didn’t
understand why the marine engine repair category was separate from another engine repair.
Segelbaum mentioned a mechanic who did marine/large engine repair in addition to auto
repair and was larger than a standard small engine repair mechanic. Campbell clarified that the
use as a whole would not be removed but potentially moved from Conditional use to Light
Industrial Use.
Commissioner Baker asked why retail items were broken down at all and why there wasn’t
even a larger umbrella retail category. Campbell responded that it’s helpful to have more
specific use categories listed, mainly for folks who are trying to understand how the code
impacts them and their business directly. Staff went on to explain other categorized uses and
code history. Commissioner Pockl asked about creating a larger cosmetology category to lump
uses together. Pockl also asked for clarification on certain uses when they offer food and
alcohol or don’t. Campbell responded that there are some uses that aren’t easy to categorize
but maybe a general entertainment use is a good idea also. Baker commented that he wants to
make sure the Commission isn’t creating unintended biases with restricted use categories. Staff
expanded on some specific restricted uses. The discussion continued regarding use categories
and particular use examples.
6. Discussion – Report on R‐3 Density Bonuses
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by reminding the Commission that they had
discussed the need to update density bonuses listed in the zoning code. Commissioners were
particularly interested in revising bonuses that revolved around sustainability and
environmental issues. Commissioners requested the Environmental Commission review the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
4
document and make recommendations to the City Council for adoption. Zimmerman included
their draft analysis in the memo and reviewed it for Commissioners.
The categories analyzed are:
Underground Parking
Green Certified Buildings
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Stormwater Facilities
Renewable Energy
Microgrids
The draft R-3 density bonuses provided to Commissioners from the Environmental Commission
may be adopted by City Council. This document isn’t part of the zoning code and therefore is
not subject to the multiple meetings and public hearing process. As sustainability evolves, staff
may return to this document to draft changes to match that evolution and present new
information to council.
Blum stated preference to have underground parking be worth more in terms of incentives, as
he saw this amenity as especially desirable for future development.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:50pm
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist provided an update on two task forces that are meeting and also gave a
summary of the City’s budget decisions that are coming up in December, including the approval of an
HRA levy. Rosenquist touched on conversations with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
regarding a new Memorandum of Understanding, efforts to restart momentum around Highway 55
BRT, and dialogue regarding fiscal disparities.
8. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None
9. Other Business
None
10. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Pockl to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: December 14, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 7324 Harold
Avenue South – CityLine Homes Inc., Applicant
Property address: 7324 Harold Ave
Applicant: CityLine Homes
Property owners: CityLine Homes
Zoning District: Moderate Density Residential
(R‐2) Zoning District
Lot size: 40,909 sq. ft. (0.94 acres)
Current use: Single‐family home
Future land use: Moderate Density Residential
Adjacent uses: Single‐family homes, Lion’s
Park
2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
2
Summary
CityLine Homes Inc., represented by Eugene Borodin, is proposing to subdivide the property located
at 7324 Harold Avenue into two lots. There is one existing single family home at this address which
would be demolished and replaced with two new single family homes.
Existing Conditions
The subject property is zoned R‐2 Moderate Density Residential and allows for both two‐family and
single family dwellings and the area is also guided for Moderate Density Residential. The lot is
currently 40,909 square feet and has a width of 130.28 feet at the front setback line. It fronts on
Harold Avenue to the south and backs up to Olson Memorial Highway to the north. The existing lot is
hooked up for sewer and water, although a second service will need to be installed if subdivided. The
City has utilities located underneath Harold Ave, so this would not require any new extension to
provide sewer/water service.
Staff Review
R‐2 Lot Requirements
For single family dwellings in an R‐2 zoning district, the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet and the
minimum width is 50 feet at the front setback line. This width must be maintained to a depth of 70
feet from the front lot line. For a two family dwelling, the City requires a minimum lot area of 10,000
square feet and a width at the front setback line of 100 feet.
The proposed subdivision would create lots of 21,623 square feet and 18,836 square feet and with
widths of 70.27 and 60.01 feet respectively. Both lots would maintain those widths to a depth of 70
feet from the front lot line. The dimensions of both of the newly created lots would provide sufficient
building envelopes for development of single family homes in an R‐2 district, however due to not
meeting the width requirement, neither lot would be viable for a two family dwelling.
Minor Subdivision Eligibility
In the City’s subdivision code there are three conditions laid out for a request to be considered a
minor subdivision action:
1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded
registered land survey (RLS)
2. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to the
creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels
3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in new
roads or utilities to serve the lots.
Sec. 109‐119. ‐ Eligibility for Application.
In the case of 7324 Harold, the lot meets all three conditions to be eligible for a minor subdivision
action. The existing lot was part of RLS No. 312, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The subdivision will
create less than four new parcels (2). And since utility services are located along Harold, it will require
no new public investment.
3
Additional Department Review
As required by the Subdivision Code, a tree inventory was performed in order to document all existing
trees. This inventory will be reviewed by the City Forester and used to calculate any required tree
replacement as the lots are redeveloped.
The existing sanitary sewer line is currently under review for the City’s Inflow and Infiltration
requirements. A deposit agreement and application have already been submitted to the City’s
engineering staff prior to this subdivision action. At the completion of construction, the new sewer
service to both homes would also be inspected to ensure compliance.
The engineering department has reviewed the subdivision application and has provided information
to the applicant on permitting as well as technical comments regarding the utilities and stormwater
management on‐site. A hydrologic/hydraulic analysis report was requested by engineering staff for
their review prior to the permitting process, and they have worked with the applicant’s civil engineer,
Civil Methods Inc., to ensure that any future homes on‐site do not disrupt stormwater management
on‐site.
The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns.
Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision
According to Section 109‐121 of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations
governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request:
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the
appropriate zoning district. Both of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements
of the R‐2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District, although they would only allow for single
family homes, not duplexes.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not
buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it
is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by
the addition of the new lots. One additional set of sewer and water connections will be
necessary. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City.
There are no additional easements that would be necessary due to the subdivision of this lot.
5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor
subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation has been contacted as the site does abut Highway 55. No comment
has been received, however staff will continue to work with MnDOT and provide opportunity for
comment prior to the formal public hearing at City Council.
4
6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain
easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of
the Final Plat.
7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of
$3,030 (6% of the estimated land value with 50% credit for one unit) is required for this
subdivision.
8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All conditions
have been met.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat.
2. A park dedication fee of $2,790 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat.
Attachments
Existing Conditions and Preliminary Plat (2 pages)
Tree Inventory, dated July 20, 2017 (4 pages)
ID#Species DBH Type
1 Crabapple 18 S
2 Spruce 18 S
3 Spruce 15 S
4 Spruce 17 S
5 Silver Maple 29 S
6 Silver Maple 22, 19, 19 S
7 Cottonwood 46 S
8 Red Oak 28 S
9 Red Oak 22 S
10 Silver Maple 16, 16, 20, 15 S
11 Silver Maple 24, 19 S
12 Silver Maple 22 S
13 Silver Maple 28, 24 S
14 Silver Maple 35 S
15 Sugar Maple 17 S
16 Green Ash 19 S
17 Silver Maple 38 S
18 Silver Maple 45 S
19 Silver Maple 12 S
20 Silver Maple 40, 26 S
21 Silver Maple 21, 13 S
22 Silver Maple 17 S
23 Silver Maple 12 S
24 Silver Maple 13 S
25 Ponderosa Pine 13 S
26 Ponderosa Pine 9 S
27 Ponderosa Pine 12 S
28 White Oak 12 S
29 White Oak 13 S
30 Green Ash 16 S
31 Cherry 12 S
32 Silver Maple 16 S
33 Spruce 14 S
34 Spruce 15 S
35 Apple 13 S
36 Cherry 17 S
37 Cherry 24 S
1
Date: December 14, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP-170) to Allow for a
Veterinary Hospital in a Light Industrial Zoning District
Property address: 750 Boone Avenue North Property owner: PAB Boone, LLC
Applicant: GNP Development Partners, LLC Lot size: 1.71 acres
Zoning District: Light Industrial Future land use: Light Industrial
Current use: Vacant office building Proposed use: Veterinary hospital
Adjacent uses: Adult day care (north); Office/warehouse (west); Telecom (south); Bassett Creek
and multifamily residential (east)
2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
2
Summary
Joshua Pardue, representing GNP Development Partners, LLC, is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) in order to allow for the operation of a specialty veterinary hospital at 750 Boone
Avenue North. Animal hospitals require a conditional use when located in the Light Industrial
zoning district. The proposed hospital would be a relocation of the small Blue Pearl office
currently located at 4708 Olson Memorial Highway.
Existing Conditions
750 Boone Ave N fronts onto Boone Ave, to the west, and backs up to Bassett Creek, to the east.
The existing structure on-site is a two-story office building constructed in 1978. It sits centrally
located on the property with parking to the west and east and a large landscaped front yard
along Boone Ave. A significant amount of the western portion of the lot is located within the
floodplain. This area may experience inundation when flooding spills over from the localized low
point of the storm water pond at 710 Boone Ave N. In the other direction, along Bassett Creek to
the east, there is floodplain and a shoreland overlay which protects an area inland from the
ordinary high water line.
The property is on the eastern edge of a light industrial area to the west of the downtown, with
more commercial uses to the south (Culver’s, Lat 14 Asian Eatery, TruStone Credit Union, Boone
Ave Convenience Center) and other office/warehouse uses to the west and north. The Legacy
Adult Daycare operations are conducted in the building on the adjacent property to the north.
The Mallard Creek apartments are located to the east, on the far side of Bassett Creek.
If the CUP is approved, the existing office building would be demolished and a new facility would
be constructed.
Proposed Use
The proposed Blue Pearl would offer emergency pet care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as
well as specialized care not available through primary veterinarians.
The new building would be centrally located on the site. At 14,798 square feet, the internal uses
would be allocated to 75% veterinary medical and 25% veterinary office. A floor plan is still being
finalized, but a representative floor plan from the Blue Pearl clinic in Arden Hills is attached as an
example of what would be constructed.
The primary parking area for visitors would be located to the west of the building, closest to
Boone Ave. Additional parking would be provided to the south and to the rear of the building.
Initial staffing levels would be 10 employees (the same as at the current location) but would grow
over time.
In the short term, patient visits would be limited to emergency appointments. This arrangement
is similar to what is happening at the current location on Olson Memorial Highway. Additional
visits would be expected as specialties are added at the new facility over the first and second
3
years. Regular visits to the site would be on weekdays, with sporadic emergency visits on
weekday evenings and weekends.
Timeframe Time of Day Average Visits Total
Now Weekdays – 8 am to 6 pm 5 on average 5
Weekdays – 6 pm to 12 am 2 on average 2
Weekdays – 12 am to 8 am 0-2 total 0-2
7-9 per day
Year 1 Weekdays – 8 am to 6 pm 3-5 per hour 30-50
Weekdays – 6 pm to 12 am 2-3 per hour 12-18
Weekdays – 12 am to 8 am 2-4 total 2-4
44-72 per day
Year 2 Weekdays – 8 am to 6 pm 6-10 per hour 60-100
Weekdays – 6 pm to 12 am 4-6 per hour 24-36
Weekdays – 12 am to 8 am 4-8 total 4-8
88-144 per day
Animals that needed to be taken outside would utilize the unpaved open space in the northeast
corner of the lot. They would be accompanied by employees and would be leashed. No animals
would be left outside unattended.
Zoning Analysis
Parking
With 73 proposed parking spaces, the minimum number of parking spaces required for a veterinary
hospital of this size would be provided. Three bicycle parking spaces would also be required.
Use Requirement Calculation Parking Spaces
Animal hospital 1 per 300 sf gross floor area 14,798 sf building 50 required
Proposed 73 shown
Difference +23
Floodplain and Shoreland Management
The property at 750 Boone Ave N is constrained on two ends by floodplain and a shoreland
overlay district. The proposed site plan adequately anticipates locating the new structure outside
of either area, and appropriately maintains a vegetated area adjacent to Bassett Creek. Surface
parking is an acceptable use within a floodplain; however, specific design requirements would be
applied and approved during the permitting phase of the project.
4
Neighborhood Notification
Additional notification to neighbors was not required. Property owners within 500 feet of this
location were notified of the Planning Commission hearing by mail. To date, staff has not been
contacted with any questions or concerns.
Evaluation
The findings and recommendations for a CUP 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. A veterinary hospital is already
present in Golden Valley and demand is great
enough that relocating and constructing a
larger facility is warranted.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met. The proposed use is consistent
with the Light Industrial designation in the
Comprehensive Plan, which allows for animal
hospitals with a conditional use permit.
3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to affect property values in a
substantial way. If anything, the demolition of
an aging office building and replacement with
a new structure could help values in the area.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard met. Traffic flows are expected to be
typical for a light industrial property, with
visitors making regular trips during the day on
weekdays. Some evening and weekend
emergency trips will occur, but these will be
fewer in number and are not anticipated to be
disruptive.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and
Density
Standard met. The veterinary hospital will
provide 10 jobs initially, with more to be
added in the future. The nature of a Light
Industrial zoning district is such that this level
of employment is expected and manageable.
Impacts to surrounding properties are not
anticipated.
6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed-Income
Housing Policy
Not applicable.
5
Factor Finding
7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard conditionally met. The proposed use
is not anticipated to generate excessive noise.
Patients (dogs) will occasionally be taken
outside while leashed but must not be left
unattended.
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. A new veterinary hospital
building will replace the aging office building
and must meet the City’s Architectural and
Material standards. Parking lot improvements
will also need to incorporate minimum City
standards.
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.
The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has no additional concerns. As
mentioned above, accommodations for the flood plain and shoreland areas will be reviewed and
approved at the time of issuance of the stormwater permit. The property is currently non-
compliant with the City’s Inflow and Infiltration requirements, but a deposit has been made to
ensure that the sanitary sewer will be compliant upon completion of the project. Engineering
staff supports approval of the CUP. The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no
additional concerns. Fire staff supports the approval of the CUP.
Recommended Action
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 170 allowing
for an Animal Hospital in a Light Industrial zoning district at 750 Boone Avenue North.
Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin
County. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. No animal shall be allowed outdoors without a leash and no animal shall be left outdoors
unattended.
6
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Applicant Narrative (2 pages)
Plans submitted November 12 and December 7, 2020 (3 pages)
Location Map
November 12, 2020
City of Golden Valley
Planning Division
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN
55427
RE: Conditional Use Permit for a specialty veterinary hospital at 750 Boone Avenue, Golden
Valley, MN.
Dear Planning Commission,
We seek your support in being granted a Conditional Use Permit for a specialty
veterinary hospital, Blue Pearl. As required, please find a narrative of how our proposed plan
meets section 113-30:
(1) Demonstrated need for the proposed use.
There are no other emergency care animals hospitals with 24/7 service in the
immediate area. There are other BluePearl locations in the greater Twin Cities
including a small facility at 4708 Olson Memorial in Golden Valley. The hospital
in question would be a relocation. The proposed location at 750 Boone Avenue
will allow Blue Pearl to continue to provide services to their Golden Valley
patients, as well as the residents of Minnetonka, St. Louis Park and Plymouth,
and to provide emergency pet care 24/7 for pet emergencies and special pet
care that is not available through their primary veterinarians.
(2) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The current zoning is Light Industrial which allows Animals Hospitals.
(3) Effect upon property values in the neighboring area.
It will either not impact the property values, or affluent customers in the area will
see an increase in the commercial property value.
(4) Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and
congestion in the area.
No effect on traffic patterns.
(5) Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses.
No effect on population density.
(6) Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy (if applicable to the
proposed use).
Not applicable.
(7) Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use.
The Blue Pearl hospital setting is quiet, and Blue Pearl has been a good neighbor both
in residential and commercial settings. Noise, especially barking, is never an issue as
they do not allow unattended dogs outside at any time. Dogs are walked only to relieve
themselves in dedicated fenced areas. Any waste is promptly picked up. In many
situations, the 24/7 presence also helps provide a deterrent to criminal activity
benefitting nearby businesses and housing.
(8) Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use.
None of the above will be caused by the proposed use.
(9) Any increase in pests, including flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to
be caused by the proposed use.
No increase in pests will be caused by the proposed use.
(10) Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use.
New construction, single story professional office building exterior.
(11) Any other effect upon the public health, safety, and welfare of the City and
its residents.
None.
The proposed use in an Animal Hospital will be 14,798 square feet, and of this 75% will
be allocated to medical and 25% to offices. The current number of staff at 4708 Olson Memorial
is around 10 and the proposed hospital will start with the same staff level and grow from there.
BluePearl provides 24/7 emergency pet care. Emergency traffic is sporadic, but heaviest on
weekday evening and weekend days, and it is controlled through appointment setting. After
hours emergencies are not scheduled but staffing and client traffic is overall decreased during
those times (6pm- 8am and on weekends).
With ninety hospitals around the country, Blue Pearl prides itself on having dedicated
professionals, immaculate facilities, including exterior areas, clean and in top condition, and at
all times. Below is a video that can be found on the Blue Pearl website under “About Us”, that
helps to demonstrate who they are and the core values of their practice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxAABKEkzho
We look forward to working with the Planning Division of Golden Valley.
Many thanks for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Joshua Pardue
FLOODWAY LIMITSIDE PARKING SETBACK LINESIDE PARKING SETBACK LINEFRONT SETBACK LINEREAR SETBACK LINESIDE BUILDING SETBACK LINESIDE BUILDING SETBACK LINE9'18.5'24'9'18.5'24'9'18.5'14798 SQ FTBUILDING73 TOTAL PARKINGSTALLS32.4'FLOODPLAIN LIMIT24'30'9'18.5'C:\Users\KoiYM1144\Desktop\Work DOCUMENTS\Outside EDS Projects\2020-0924 KEVIN\MED BLDG SITE CONCEPT- REVISED.dwg 12/7/2020 5:16:11 PM
ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:DESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT:SUB CONSULTANT:CHK'D BY:APP'D BY:DWN BY:CERTIFICATION:7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWYSUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE: 763-252-6800FAX: 952-831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMYMK10/23/20201BORINGLOCATIONSEX1GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET03060