Loading...
05-13-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, May 13, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-96) Applicants: Minnetonka Motor Car Sales, Inc. (dba Morrie's Mazda) Address: 9010 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow for an automobile dealership on property in the Commercial zoning district. III. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: Robbinsdale School District No. 281 Address: Institutional (1-1) Zoning Districts, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to add "School District Offices" as a Conditional Use to the City's Institutional (1-1) Zoning districts. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to revise the telecommunication requirements of the Zoning Code -- Short Recess -- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings VI. Other Business A. Open Space and Recreation Commission tour of Golden Valley parks-June 24,2002 VII. Adjournment , . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 22, 2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Grog and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Deve Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. was absent. n, McAleese Grimes, City Rasmussen I. Approval of Minutes - April 8, 2002 Plannin MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and m April 8, 2002 minutes as submitted. animously to approve the II. Informal Public Hearing - Condo Applicant: Address: 850 Florida , Golden Valley, MN Permit would allow for a skate park on property zOning district. Purpose: Olson referred to the I skate park operati changes to the ext interior, which site map. He discussed the applicant's existing indoor lis. He stated that the applicant is not proposing any e building, but they are planning to make changes to the a pro shop of not more than 600 square feet. 'ng on the site and stated that parking is the biggest issue for occupy this space, because of the way the building has been added onto in the e stated this proposed skate park would not have the normal 9:00 to 5:00 business ours and that most of the customers would not arrive at the site until after 5:00 PM. He discussed the fact that most of the clientele are under the legal driving age and would be carpooling, taking a bus, riding their bikes or being dropped off by their parents, which will help with the parking issue. He then discussed the 15 conditions of approval listed in his memo dated April 17, 2002. Olson stated that Staff believes a major concern of surrounding businesses may be noise. He stated that outdoor speakers and music would be prohibited and the outside skate area would be screened to lessen the visual and noise impact. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 2 . Olson mentioned that the applicants have submitted a code analysis for the building and that the Building Official has no issues with it. He told the Commission that Staff is recommending approval of this proposal. Pentel stated that she thought some sort of speaker system outside would be a good idea on this site so announcements could be made to the outdoor skate park users. . Pentel asked if there are smokin Olson stated that he did not all ages wondered if Groger referred to the applicant's narrative where it mentions tha would be coming to the site. He asked how limited the access it would be advisable to limit the number of people allowed 0 Grimes told the Commission that he would find out the m Inspections Department. He stated he also had concern events and stated that the applicants may have to I adjacent properties. Groger stated that another number of people on the site would equal the pancy from the hours or weekend parking space from the proval might be that the arking spaces. Shaffer suggested closing the outdoor p so they could gain another ten parking out of parking spaces they could lea park in the summer, if necessary, 'mes stated that if they were to run om businesses located nearby. nces for the type of business being proposed. uggested that she ask the applicants. Mark Muller, Aaron Zdon, Lair, Eric Froland of PI ts, introduced Steve Gareri the current manager at 3rd ers and Jordan Greenburg the realtor for this property. Pentel asked the a confirmed tha and that th September 1, if they were planning to close their current location. Muller closing their current location on Luke Street in Minneapolis open the new location before winter, probably on or about II of the business partners involved have over 60 years combined experience skateboarding and that they own their own business. He stated that they have looked at warehouses all over the metro area and thought the proposed site was good because it is right off of Interstate 394 and it is not located too far away from their current location for their existing clients. He stated that most of their clientele were young boys under 16 who do not drive and that this site has double the amount of parking space compared to their current location. He explained that they have a zero tolerance policy in regards to smoking, drugs and alcohol and that if someone were to get caught doing these things they would be kicked out of the facility for life. He stated that they want to become active members of the community and would like to get schools involved in their programs. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 3 Gareri, stated that he has worked at the 3rd Lair for 4 % years and that 80% of the kids are dropped off by their parents. Pentel asked Gareri to explain the procedure they use when a new client comes to their skate park. Gareri stated that first the parents fill out a waiver form and then the information gets entered into the computer. They then explain the rules and issue a card. Grimes playing. loud. Pentel asked how injuries and accidents are handled. Gareri s injuries are bumps and bruises, buy they call the parents for st of the serious. Grimes asked how many people they expected to attend make reservations. Muller stated that it is first come, first 25 kids per session. and if clients can d they expect about Eck asked how much noise there would be on skating area and air conditioning at their curre have an outdoor skating area at the curr is air-conditioned. He stated that ther have rubberized wheels and they w d if they have an outdoor Muller stated that they do not that half of their current building uch noise because the skateboards ting on plywood. Grimes asked what type of skati would have smaller ramps fo ned for the outside portion. Muller stated that it nd beginning skaters. Eck asked if they expect t dropped off at the site. that they expect to ee whole new clientele since their clientele now are d that most of their clients are from the suburbs and heir current clientele. Eck asked ab schedule. f operation. Muller stated that it basically follows the school y Intend to keep any doors open and if they would have music ted that they do have a jukebox and P.A. system but they don't play it Eck asked if they required clients to wear safety gear. Muller stated that helmets, kneepads and elbow pads are required and that they do daily safety checks on all the ramps before they open. Greenburg stated that he is impressed with Muller's experience and certification. He is also impressed that the park will be smoke free and drug free and thinks it is a great idea. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 4 . Groger asked how many demonstrations and events they have per year and how many people they expect to attend them. Muller stated they have two or three events per year that are held on Saturdays or Sundays and they would expect approximately 50 to 100 people if it were a big event. He stated that the building is rated at 494 people and that it would never be full. He assured the Commission that he is looking to lease parking space from adjacent properties. Pentel opened the public hearing. have a bike Sam Wagenheim, 7182 Harold Avenue, Golden Valley, ask rack at the site. Muller stated that they would. Matt Knippenberg, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, Gold skating session would last and if someone was alre park if that membership would carry over to the sessions would be three hours long and that m location. II sked how long a ber at the current skate I . Muller stated that the s would carry over to the new Seeing and hearing no one. . Groger stated that this proposal s issue. Pentel stated that it is a s nd that parking doesn't seem to be an positive youth activity for Golden Valley. The Commission discusse P.A. system could be used Y ought the hours of operation should be and if a for announcements and safety issues. Shaffer stated that skating space cou properties co ' o add to condition number eleven that the outdoor d down and used for parking if leasing space from adjacent d out. MOVED by request a c Industrial econded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the tional use permit which would allow for a skate park on property in the istrict with the following conditions: 1. No parking shall be allowed within the landscape areas. 2. Any signage for the building must meet the signage requirements of the City's Inspection Department. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 5 5. All deliveries shall take place between 8:00 A.M and 2:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. 6. Bicycle racks for at least 20 bicycles shall be provided. 7. Whenever possible, private individual and group lessons shall opening hours on Saturdays or Sundays. 8. No outside music, loud speakers, or public address sy for occasional announcements and safety issues. 1I0wed except 9. The pro shop shall remain a secondary use to the and shall occupy no more than 600 square fee 10. The parking lot shall be striped so as to p 11. If the Director of Planning and Dev are needed, the applicants will b and/or lease parking areas fro rmines that more parking spaces take down the outdoor skating area s within 500 feet of this building. 12. If the Director of Planning congested during sessi alleviate this congesti velopment determines that parking is becoming between sessions may be lengthened so as to 13. Operating hours ~ nday through Sunday, 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM. 14. I, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 15. one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for conditional use permit. III. ublic Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-96) Applicants: Minnetonka Motor Car Sales, Inc. (dba Morrie's Mazda) Address: 9010 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow for an automobile dealership on property in the Commercial zoning district. . The applicant for this proposal was not in attendance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 6 . Grimes discussed Morrie's plans to operate a small dealership of previously owned cars at 9010 Olson Memorial Highway. He stated that Avis Rent-a-Carutilized this site in the early 1990's in a very similar way and discussed the parking plan. He stated that the information submitted by Morrie's indicates there are 57 outdoor spaces. Ten of the spaces are designated for customer parking and six of the spaces are designated for employee parking. The remaining 41 spaces are for the outdoor display of vehicles. He discussed Morrie's plans to have three vehicles on a showroom floo' 'de the building and stated that Staff has asked Morrie's to submit a structural an termine whether or not the floor can support three cars. Pentel asked how the cars would be dropped not discussed that with the applicant, but thou on Golden Valley Road. , which equates ance the existing emo dated April 18, Grimes stated that Morrie's is predicting about 150 custom to approximately 50 trips per day. He discussed Morrie's building and the conditions of approval he is recommendi 2002. ite. Grimes stated that he has ght have an occasional drop-off Shaffer suggested adding a conditio . landscaped area. Grimes stated Eck stated that this site is pr this. Grimes stated that h to ask the applicant. d questioned what Morrie's is gaining by doing er that and suggested that would be something Steve Johnso after the bu . approval wou questio if a also conc Avis utilized I . Memorial Highway, asked how long the lights would be on d for the day. Groger explained that one of the conditions of t only the security lights can be on after 8:00 PM. Pentel e or bushes would help with the lighting issue. Johnson stated he is out noise. Eck asked if the lighting on the site was satisfactory when ohnson stated yes it was. Carole Aljadah, 8945 Olson Memorial Highway, stated that since 1983 when Avis was at the site there were lights on all of the time, constant ringing of a phone, and they were paging people constantly. She also stated that she wants to make sure that there isn't any expansion of car dealerships on Olson Memorial Highway. . Eck asked Aljadah if she was satisfied with all of the changes the City had Avis make in regards to the lighting. Aljadah stated she didn't remember and stated she was concerned about increased crime. . . . Minutes of the. Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 7 Arlen Turnquist, 433 Ensign Avenue North, stated he too has concerns about the lights and asked how willing the applicant would be to work with the neighborhood. Pentel explained that the lighting issue is covered as one of the conditions of approval and that if Morrie's doesn't follow the conditions, they won't get a conditional use permit. Groger suggested that it might be helpful to the neighbors if they. re Heidi Erickson, 820 Rhode Island Avenue South, stated that s at AutoPoint, which does the exact same business. She sta to have Morrie's Mazda at this location and that Morrie's is doors down d be excellent Hearing and seeing no one, Pentel closed the public hea re-open it when the applicant is present. She stated~ to have a chance to talk to the applicant. n ated that she would would like to table this item Groger stated that it seemed odd that they are because that would equal only 6 per day McAleese told the Commissioners t have to be tabled because the ap Id still vote on the item and that it doesn't resent. John Liss, National Camera, that he didn't understand seemed to be in a hurry to the property. land that Morrie's is proposing to use, stated II nts weren't at the meeting because they project started and they have a date set for closing on MOVED by Hoffm request.by Mo dealership Commission ed by Groger and motion carried unanimously to table the ditional use permit which would allow for an automobile e Commercial zoning district until the May 13, 2002 Planning to mail hearing notices again to properties located within 500 feet of -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Hoffman discussed the City Council meeting he attended on April 16, 2002 where the Conditional Use Permit for International Healthcare Services was tabled until the May 7, 2002 Council meeting. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 8 V. Other Business A. Discussion of Draft Telecommunications Ordinance Olson referred to the draft Telecommunications Ordinance that the Commissioners received with their agenda packets and stated that he would like to discuss this draft with the Commissioners. Groger asked about the timetable for finalizing this ordinance. deadline set but that he has gotten responses back from so the copies of the draft to. there isn't a C1ers he sent Eck referred to page 6, line 32 of the draft ordinance and sentence should read as follows: No tefecommunic required minimum front, side, or rear yard (setb word "setback" should be added to that senten changed. Eck stated that he didn'tunderstand is repeated in each zoning district. Grim draft of the ordinance with the City Att clear. t he thought the r shall be located in the n rcel. Grimes agreed the ted that would make sure it is formation about satellite dishes taff would be going over this Id try to make the information more Shaffer referred to page 9, line 2 landscaping and maintainin ated that it doesn't mention anything about the ped areas. Groger stated that he woul telecommunications to areas. Olson state t setback requirem see something in the ordinance that requires minimum distance from single-family residential munications towers would have to follow the same ildings do. Id ask Sue Webber from the Sun Post newspaper to do an lecommunication ordinance. ssion of May 27, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission decided to cancel their May 27,2002 meeting because of Memorial Day. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. I. " Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Amendment to Text of Zoning Code to Add "School District Offices with a Floor Area Ratio not to Exceed .11 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area per Each Square Foot of Land Area Within a Lot or Parcel" as a Conditional Use in the 1-1 (Institutional) Zoning Sub district-Robbinsdale School District, Applicant Date: May 6, 2002 . Requested Action The Robbinsdale School District has requested that the City of Golden Valley amend the 1-1 Institutional Sub-district to allow school district offices with a floor area ratio not to exceed .11 sq. ft. of gross floor area per each square foot of land area within a lot or parcel as a conditional use. Currently, there are about a dozen properties that are zoned 1-1. These properties are all churches and schools, both public and private. The proposed zoning text change would apply to all properties zoned 1-1. The school district has made this request because the existing school district office at 42nd and Winnetka Ave. in New Hope has mold and mildew problems that are affecting the health of employees working in the building. The cost to cure those problems is as much or more than to build a new building or rehab an existing building that does not have mold and mildew problems. The school district would like to utilize Olson School at 1751 Kelly Drive as their permanent school district office. Olson School is currently vacant. It has not been used as a school for over a year and the school district has no plans to use it for a school. According to Section 11.90, Subd. 3 a property owner or the City Council may request amendments to the zoning code. The Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing on this request and send on its recommendation to the City Council. There are no specific findings that the Planning Commission must make when making a recommendation on a zoning code text amendment. This is different from a conditional use permit where the Planning Commission is asked to make findings on ten items. . '. Existing Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan . . The zoning code permits the following uses by right in the 1-1 Institutional Sub-District 1. Churches 2. Schools, public and parochial, excepting colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education 3. Essential Services-Class I 4. Seasonal Farms Produce Sales The zoning code also lists the following uses as conditional uses in the 1-1 Sub-District: 1. Child day care facilities 2. Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are reasonable compatible with the uses specifically described as permitted uses in the 1-1 Sub-district The staff has reviewed the 1-1 Sub-district and is recommending that a change to the text of the zoning code is necessary in order for Olson School to be used as a school district office. It is the staffs opinion that use of a school that is zoned 1-1 for school district offices is not permitted because it does not fit either the permitted uses or conditional uses listed above. Although schools have a certain percentage of space dedicated to office space for teachers and staff, this is a small percentage when compared to the overall use of the building for a school. The staff does believe that a school district office fits within the purpose of the Institutional zoning district. The zoning code states in Section 11.46, Subd. 1, that lithe purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to establish areas where both public and private institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, parks, golf courses, nursing homes and public buildings may be located." A school district office building is a "public building". In each case where a school is located in Golden Valley, the General Land Use Plan map indicates the areas are for Institutional uses. The staffs opinion is that a school district office is consistent with this institutional land use plan designation. Discussion of Proposed Text Change The school district realizes and agrees that the district offices cannot be located at Olson School without a text change to the zoning code. After meeting with city staff, they requested a new conditional use category in the 1-1 zoning district that would list school district offices with a very low floor area ratio of .11 square feet of gross floor area per each square foot of land area in the lot or parcel. If this change were approved by the City Council, it would allow the school district to then apply for a CUP to utilize Olson School for school district offices. The intent of the school district is to utilize the entire building (about 44,000 sq. ft.) for offices and boardroom space. The existing gym would remain as a gym and possibly be used for a community gym. The school district has met with members of the neighborhood to discuss the conversion of the school to district offices. There is opposition to the change as indicated in the attached letter from Jeffrey Carson to Tom Walerius and me dated May 2,2002. The letter indicates that there was a neighborhood meeting on April 30, 2002 and that a vote was taken regarding 2 ~. support for the zoning code changes. The letter indicates that more people were opposed then in favor. In speaking with Mr. Carson about the neighborhood concerns, there appears to be several. However, the most important appear to be increased vehicle trips caused by a school district office versus an elementary school, possible conversion of the school district office to a commercial office at some time in the future, and changes to the site required to accommodate the school district office including additional parking and additions to the building at a future date. Staff understands the neighborhood concerns and agrees that they are important to consider. The neighbors moved into this area with the expectation that there was a school building with a tremendous amount of open space, trees and a large playground. The school and the school grounds is probably a reason why many of the neighbors bought homes in this area. Allowing the change in the zoning code to permit school district offices may be perceived to be a change that would not enhance the neighborhood because it may increase traffic and change the overall character of the site by taking away open space or playground areas. The staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the proposed change to the text of the zoning code with an eye on how a school district office would perform as compared to an elementary school. For example, what would be the difference in traffic (amount, time of day, type of vehicles) at a school as compared to a school district office or the amount of open space at a school as compared to a school district office? . In making this comparison, take into consideration that the proposed language will allow only school district offices with a very low floor area ratio. The floor area ratio (FAR) was agreed to by the school district. It is essentially the existing FAR for the Olson School site as it.now exists. (The FAR is determined by taking the gross floor area of a building and dividing that by the total square footage of the site. In the case of Olson School, the building has about 44,000 sq. ft. of floor area on two levels and about 400,000 sq. ft. of land area.) This FAR approach was recommended by staff and agreed to by the school district because it allows school district offices in the 1-1 Sub-district if they are located in a building that has the same low FAR as a typical elementary school site. This means that almost 90% of the site will not have structures. The staff believes that this is important because the zoning and use of the site is for a school or church as established in the zoning code and.that if it would be used for an office, the office should be allowed to cover no more of the site with building than if it were a typical elementary school with substantial open space. . Parking and hard surface space should also be compared for a school versus a school district office. With a 40,000 sq. ft. office building (about the size of Olson School minus the gym space), the code requires 160 parking spaces because it is assumed that a building of that size may need that amount to accommodate employees and guests. The zoning code requires that schools have one parking space for every 3 units of seating. Using Olson School as an example, Olson had a capacity of about 400 students. Therefore, about 133 spaces would be required. (At the current time, there are about 100 parking spaces at the Olson site.) Therefore, the parking required for a 400-student school is about 83% of that required for a 40,000 square ft. office building. The difference in the amount of hard surface space needed for a 400-studentschool (133 spaces) and a 40,000 sq. ft. school district office 3 ~. . . (160 spaces) is about 10,800 sq. ft. (Assume each parking space requires 400 sq. ft. of area for the parking space and access aisles.) In the case of a school district office, a conditional use permit could permit fewer spaces if the City and school district felt it was not necessary to build 160 spaces to meet the demand of the school district office. (School district staff has told the City that only about 130 spaces are needed if the school district office were at Olson. Only about 15 parking spaces would have to be added to meet the130 spaces need.) Proof of parking could be used if it was determined that there was not a need for the required amount needed for normal offices. In many elementary schools, there is often times hard space that is used as playground area and not used for parking. The difference in traffic generation must also be considered. Is the amount and type of traffic generated by a school district office different or less neighborhood "friendly" than a school or church? At the time of the writing of this memo, the staff has not yet received a report back from Glen VanWormer PE of Short-Elliot-Hendrickson Engineering (SEH). (The City has asked Mr.VanWormer to comment on traffic generation from a typical elementary school of 400 students versus a 40,000 sq. ft. school district office.) The initial staff thought is that a school district office of 130 workers will generate about 700-800 trips per day, primarily from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm. A small amount of those trips may be in the evening if there are school board meetings at the site. (The school district said they would like to hold school board meetings at this location. The meetings begin at 7 pm and generally have fewer than 25 persons in attendance. If there were a large crowd anticipated, they would look for an alternative site with adequate parking and assembly space.) At this time, staff would like to wait for Mr. VanWormer's thoughts on traffic generation from a typical elementary school. The staff has heard conflicting reports on traffic generation from typical elementary schools. Therefore, the staff wants to hold off on giving the Planning Commission a traffic number until we hear from Mr. VanWormer on Monday, May 13th. The type of vehicles should also be considered. With a school, there would be school buses dropping children off in the morning and possibly at mid-day for kindergarten. There would also be bus pick-up at the end of the day. They would be some trucks coming to a school site making various deliveries from food to supplies. If it were an office building, the trips would primarily be by car with some truck traffic for deliveries similar to a school. Access to the site would have to be considered as part of a CUP. The other main issue appears to be the appearance of the school and the site. With the low floor area ratio, almost 90% of a school district office site must remain without structure on it. (The zoning code now allows buildings in the Institutional zoning district to cover up to 25% of the land.) Other than hard space needed for parking and driveways, the CUP with the school district for the office can be written to require that the open space and playgrounds remain and be maintained. The CUP can also require that the outside appearance of the building remain "school-like" in appearance and if a new building were built to have a "school-like" appearance and be constructed so that it could be converted to a school. The setback and height requirements for school district office buildings would be the same as for schools as outlined in the 1-1 zoning district. These setback requirements are much larger than what is found in the Commercial or Industrial zoning district. The staff is attaching a copy of the 1-1 district requirements for your review. 4 .. Recommended Action At this time, the staff has not yet received traffic information from Glen VanWormer. This information will provide the City with traffic generation numbers comparing a school district office building with an elementary school. This is important information that staff needs to have prior to making a final recommendation. It is hoped to be received by Monday, May 13, prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Staff will read it and have comments on it at the hearing. If the Planning Commission would like additional time to review the traffic report of Mr. VanWormer, the consideration of this zoning text change could be delayed. If it were determined that a difference in traffic were not that great and that traffic could be "managed" as part of a CUP, the staff recommends approval of the proposed text change. The text change as written appears to provide the necessary protection to the public by maintaining the overall character of the sites that were planned originally for churches or schools. By limiting the FAR of a school district office building, the overall character of the site will remain very low density and existing open space and playground space will be required to be maintained as part of the CUP. With a carefully crafted CUP, issue~ relating to access, parking, hours of operation, maintenance, and others matters of concern can be addressed. . Attachments: . Location Map . Site Survey . Institutional Section of the Zoning Code . Tom Walerius letter dated March 18,2002 . Tom Walerius letter dated May 2,2002 . Jeffrey Carson letter dated April 1, 2002 . Jeffrey Carson letter dated May 2, 2002 . 5 ". . 911.45 . playgrounds. 2. Recreational facilities such as ballfields, swimming pools and 3. Daytime activity centers and/or other facilities providing school and/or training for retarded or handicapped people. 4. Financial institutions, including drive-in facilities. office building. 5. Limited retail services within a professional Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 6. Heliports, as herein defined. A. Offices B. Essential Services - Class I Subdivision 10. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: A. Essential Services - Class II when constructed on top of a principal building and not exceeding 120 feet in height as measured from the groundleve!. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 SECTION 11.46. INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is ,. to establish areas where both public and private institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, parks,golf courses, nursing homes and public buildings may be located. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 306 (6-15-98) .. S 11.46 Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the Institutional Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.46, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.46 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Institutional Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Uses Permitted. Sub-District: A. The fOlloWing uses shall be permitted in the 1-1 Institutional Zoning 1. Churches. 2. Schools, public and parochial, excepting colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education. Source: Ordinance No. 567 . Effective Date: 5-28-82 3. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 4. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales. Source: Ordinance No. 127, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-27-95 Sub-District: B. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-2 Institutional Zoning 1. Public and private libraries. 2. Museums. education. 3. Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 . GOLDEN VALLEY CC 307 (6-15-98) .. 911.46 4. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Sub-District: C. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-3 Institutional Zoning 1. Rest homes, sanitariums, nursing homes, clinics and other buildings incidental to the operation thereof. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 2. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Sub-District: D. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-4 Institutional Zoning 1. Golf courses, country clubs and polO fields, excepting those . carried on as a business such as miniature golf courses. 2. Parks, playgrounds, City offices, fire stations, and other lands incidental to the operation of the City. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 . 3. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Sub-District: E. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-5 .Institutional zoning 1. Cemeteries. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 2. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. .80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 308 (6-15-98) '. . . S 11.46 Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be allowed in the .. following Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts when approVed by the Council in accordance. with the provisions of this Chapter: A. Congregate Housing - Housing for the elderly, providing at least one prepared meal per day, in a common dining room. Such housing may also provide certain medical and social services over and above what might be provided in a standard elderly apartment complex. Congregate housing may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. B. Elderly Housing- Housing (either subsidized or unsubsidized) specifically designed and built for occupancy by elder persons in much the same way that standard multi-family dwellings might be built and managed, but not providing the same services as congregate housing, may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. C. Hospitals and out-patient surgical facilities may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. D. Lodge halls and private clubs may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional zoning Sub-District. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28~82 District. E. Residential facilities only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub- Source: Ordinance No. 653 Effective Date: 4-12-85 F. Child day-care facilities may also be permitted as a Conditional Use within the 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and/or 1-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 G. Heliports, as herein defined. H. Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are reasonably compatible with the uses specifically described in Subdivision 3, above, may be permitted as a Conditional Use in any of the four Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts set forth above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 309 (6-15-98) '. . . 9 11.46 Subdivision 5. Height. No building or structure other than water tanks, water tank towers and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed three (3) st.ories in height in the Institutional Zoning District. Church spires, belfries, chimneys and architectural finials may be permitted to exceed the maximum provisions of this Section when erected in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 Subdivision 6. Use of Land. For the purpose of maintaining the character of this Zoning District, no buildings or structures shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the lot or premises. Subdivision 7. Loading and Parking. Adequate areas for off-street loading and unloading of trucks and service vehicles shall be provided in each Institutional Zoning District. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces provided in each Institutional Zoning District shall be as follows: A. 1-1 Institutional Sub-District - One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) units of seating capacity in churches and schools. B. 1-2 Institutional Sub-District - For libraries and museums, at least one parking space for each four (4) units of seating capacity shall be provided. Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education shall provide at least one (1) parking space for each four (4) units of seating capacity, or one (1) parking space for each four (4) students based on total enrollment, whichever is greater. C. 1-3 Institutional Sub-District - Lodge halls and private clubs shall provide one (1) parking space for each two and one-half (2-1/2) seats based on maximum capacity design. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) employees, plus one (1) parking space for each four (4) beds in hospitals, sanitariums, rest homes, and nursing homes, For clinics (medical or dental) and out-patient treatment facilities one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, plus one (1) space for each doctor and one (1) parking space per each 250 square feet of gross floor area shall be required. For congregate and/or elderly housing, one (1) parking space shall be provided for every two (2) dwelling units. Such spaces may be uncovered. Group homes, and residences and/or treatment facilities for chemically dependent persons, shall provide one (1) parking space for each four (4) beds, plus one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, and one (1) parking space for each resident vehicle. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 310 (6-15-98) .. . . ~ 11.46 D. 1-4 Institutional Sub-District - One (1) parking space shall be provided for each five (5) patrons based on holding capacity for golf courses, country clubs, or polo fields. In addition, one (1 ) parking space for each three (3) employees shall also be provided. City offices shall be provided with off-street parking on a basis of one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, plus adequate parking to accommodate visitors having business at City offices. Fire stations and other similar facilities shall provide at least one (1) parking space for each two (2) on-duty personnel based on maximum personnel per shift. E. 1-5 Institutional Sub-District - Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for visitors and employees at cemeteries located within this Zoning Sub-District. F. All parking stalls within the InstitutionalZoning District shall b~ at least 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 Subdivision 8. Yard Requirements. Side and rear yards in the Institutional Zoning District shall not be less than 50 feet in width and depth, of which at least 25 feet adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 Subdivision 9. Front Yards. No building or structure in an Institutional Zoning District shall be located less than 35 feet from the property line abutting a public street. All portions of a parcel of land abutting a public street shall be regarded as front yards. All front yards shall be planted, and landscaped, and shall contain no off-street parking. Source: Qrdinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 (Sections 11.47 through 11.54, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) SECTION 11.50. TERMINAL WAREHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT. Repealed by Ordinance No. 50, 2nd Series, adopted 11-13-90.) GOLDEN VALLEY CC 311 (6-15-98) . .. . . March 18, 2002 l- z: IV '" z: IV tJ '" ~ Dear Neighbor of Olson Elementary School: I RODD I MSDt1 LE. area schools Several years ago the district announced its intentions to use Olson Elementary as a temporary site while the district renovated its elementary schools. To date, staff and students from Noble, Neill, Zachary Lane, and Meadow Lake have used the Olson facility. The district has 5 schools yet to be renovated, none in 2002. The Olson School has been empty since January 2002. Last summer, environmental concerns surfaced at the District Office building at 42nd and Winnetka. We have studied a number of options at the 42nd and Winnetka site as well as at the old Robbinsdale Junior High School building at 42nd and Highway 100. All of the options are quite expensive~ more than many people might want to spend on an office building. We have also considered the Olson site and the Winnetka Elementary building at 55th and Winnetka. The administration is proposing that 30-60 district office staff be moved to Olson on a temporary basis. If all district office personnel were moved, the number would be 118. Both the Olson site and the Winnetka Elementary School site will continue to be considered as options for office space in the future. We would like to meet with residents that live near Olson to discuss: · Temporary use of Olson as an office site. · Neighborhood response to "longer term" use of Olson as a District Office. · Other future uses for Olson. District officials will try to address issues such as traffic, parking, maintenance of play area, use of gym, and construction within the building. The meeting will be held on Thursday April 11th at 7 :00 p.m. at Olson School, 1751 Kelly Drive, Golden Valley, in the media center. I hope you can attend. Sincerely, <1, '-;/fZ '07/t (L;- ~;1;d~ Thomas H. Walerius Executive Director of Administrative Services c: Superintendent Stan Mack Robbinsdale School Board Members Cabinet Linda Loomis, Golden Valley Mayor WilliaIIl1~g~nes, Golden Valley City Manager ~_llies, Golden Valley Director of Planning & Development Education Service Center. 4148 Winnetka Avenue North. New Hope MN 55421-1288. (763) 504-8000. Fax (763) 504-8973 May 2, 2002 I ROD DI W5Dt1lE. area schools .. o DIHRICT 281 o :I: ~ >- z:: ILl o z:: ILl t:; o ~ City of Golden Valley Mr. Mark Grimes 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes: Independent School District 281 would like to relocate its district office and office functions to Olson Elementary School, 1751 Kelly Drive, in Golden Valley. The District requests that the City of Golden Valley amend its current zoning ordinance to allow the district to seek a "Conditional Use Permit" for that purpose. Enclosed are the documents that, I believe, are necessary for such an application. . Currently, there are 110 parking spaces at Olson. The District requests that it be allowed to increase that to 150. There are 119 employees in the district office and approximately 150 visitors per day. We estimate total trips, both entering and existing the site, to be between 700 and 750 per day. There will be some modification to the interior of the building to accommodate office use. An elevator addition will be the only external modification to the building. The District would like to make the gymnasium available to the community and therefore would not alter that section ofthe interior. It is also the District's intentions to continue city and community use of the field and play area. The City's positive consideration ofthis matter is appreciated. If you have any questions, I can bereached at 763-504-8037. Sincerely, I 7 Cil~t-~:~ ;J/:.. p;~ Thomas H. Walerius Executive Director of Administrative Services . Education Service Center. 4148 Winnetka Avenue North. New Hope MN 55427.1288. (763) 504-8000. Fax (763) 504-8973 . ". '. . . GARSON, GLELLAND & SGHREDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTN'ERSHIP JEFFREY A. CARSON WILLIAM G. CLELLAND ELLEN M. SCHREDER DAVID K. ROSS ANNA KRAUSE CRABB TELEPHONE (76;3) 561-2800 FAX (76;3) 561-1943 6;300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE ;305 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554;30-2190 April 1, 2002 TO: The Neighbors of Olson Elementary School I am writing this letter as a fellow neighbor of Olson School. It is my intention to give you some additional information as the April 11 th meeting approaches. I have spoken with Mr.Walerius, school district representative and author of the 3-18-02 correspondence and I have met with Mark Grimes, Golden Valley city planner. I enclose for your review sections of the zoning code pertinent to this matter. The obvious is that the Olson School property is zoned I-I and the school is a permitted use in that zone. Just as obvious to me is that the proposed use ofthe property as school administrative offices does not fall within the I-I, and really does not fit specifically in any of the I zones. The use of a building for school administration is more like typical commercial office use. In discussions with the city planner, he thought possibly the use requested by the school district might be permitted as a Conditional Use (CUP) under Subdivision 4 H, the catch-all language of such other uses that the Council deems compatible. The counter to that thinking is the only permitted use in the 1-1 zone, by CUP, is child-daycare which obviously is compatible with school use. WitLout specific authority from the code, the answer to the school district should be no. Having said that, it is my own personal thought that Olson School should be ~lsed in some manner that will lend itself to re-use as a school and not in any manner that would lead to future "commercial" type use. The CUP may be the best vehicle for accomplishing that end so tha(strict conditions may be placed on the use of the property, for example: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. no parking off the site; no expansion of existing parking on the site; no more personnel than can legally park currently on the site; no expansion of the existing building footprint; and no additional height permitted to the building. " . - .. The Neighbors of Olson Elementary School April 1, 2002 Page 2 . . In other words, the school building stays the same, the lot and land stay the same and the only legal future use remains as a school or church. By using the CUP vehicle, there will be no request for re-zoning and, therefore, no need to resist such a request. Also, there is no danger of a re-zoning request being permitted which might lead to a more intense use of the Olson site. Allowing the above use, conditionally, while at the same time getting a commitment from the Golden Valley City Council that no zoning change will be entertained, now or in the future, may be a reasonable compromise. I will be in attendance at the April 11 th meeting if at all possible. I may have a meeting that evening. Should any person have a question or comment, please give me a call. Sincerely, ~gy' ~y A. Carson _M___.__. JAC:gn Enclosure cc: Thomas H. \Valerius, Robbins dale Schools Mark W. Glimes, City of Golden Valley Blair Tremere, Councilmember .. . . CARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP JEFFREY A. CARSON WILLIAM G. CLELLAND ELLEN M. SCHREDER DAVID K. ROSS ANNA KRAUSE CRABB 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE 305 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430-2190 May 2, 2002 Mr. Mark W. Grimes, AICP Director of Planning & Development City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Mr. Thomas H. Walerius Executive Director of Admin. Services ESC - Robbinsdale Area Schools 4148 Winnetka Ave. No. New Hope, MN 55427 Re: Olson Citizen Meeting Dear Mr. Grimes and Mr. Walerius: TELEPHONE (763) 561-2800 FAX (763) 561-1943 A number of citizens living near Olson Elementary School met on April 30, 2002 and discussed the school district's proposed use of Olson School. At the end of the evening, a vote was taken on the question of whether or not the citizens supported the proposed amendment to the zoning text permitting school district administrative offices in the 1-1 zone by Conditional Use Permit. The results of the vote were as follows: 15 no votes meaning not in favor of using the school building for administrative offices 9 votes in favor of either permanent or temporary use of Olson School as administrative building by Conditional Use Permit 3 votes undecided 2 votes by phone call prior to the meeting against use as administrative offices .. . . Messrs. Grimes and Walerius May 2, 2002 Page 2 Therefore, 17 out of 29 persons had strong feelings against the use of Olson School as an administrative building for the school district. I voted on the side of the majority and I am going to prepare and distribute petitions in the neighborhood to determine just how many neighbors agree with the majority. These petitions will be presented at the planning and zoning meeting scheduled for May 13,2002. I am sending you this information because I have told both of you that I would inform you as to the results of our citizen meeting. If either of you have questions of me, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Very truly yours, JAC:gn cc: Olson School residents . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing for Zoning Code Amendment - Telecommunication Ordinance Date: May 9,2002 Purpose At the April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a draft telecommunications ordinance. Attached are minutes relating to the discussion of that draft ordinance. Also, attached for your information is a list of parks and open spaces as outlined in the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan. These are referred to in Subdivision 7 A (4) and (5). Staff submitted this draft to several area telecommunication providers. We received responses from Peter Beck of Gray Plant Moody and Peter Coyle from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren. Staff has reviewed these comments and made one change to the draft ordinance: to add a sentence to Subdivision 5 B (5) that would allow for Temporary Towers in emergency situations in the Residential and Two Family zoning districts. These comments have been forwarded to the City Attorney for his review. Staff should be able to make the Planning Commission aware of his comments at the meeting. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Draft Telecommunication ordinance be forwarded onto the City Council for their approval. Attachments · Minutes from April 22, 2002 Planning Commission meeting . Draft Telecommunication Ordinance · List of Golden Valley Parks and Open Spaces (from the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan) · Comments on the draft Telecommunication Ordinance from attorneys Peter Beck and Peter Coyle Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 8 . v. Other Business A. Discussion of Draft Telecommunications Ordinance Olson referred to the draft Telecommunications Ordinance that the Commissioners received with their agenda packets and stated that he would like to discuss this draft with- the Commissioners. Groger asked about the timetable for finalizing this ordinance. deadline set but that he has gotten responses back from so the copies of the draft to. t he thought the r shall be located in the an rcel. Grimes agreed the ted that would make sure it is formation about satellite dishes _ taft would be going over this Id try to make the information more Eck referred to page 6, line 32 of the draft ordinance and sentence should read as follows: No telecommunica required minimum front, side, or rear yard (setb word "setback" should be added to that senten changed. Eck stated that he didn't understand is repeated in each zoning district. Grim draft of the ordinance with the City Att clear. . ,Shaffer referred to page 9, line 2 landscaping and maintainin ated that it doesn't mention anything about the ped areas. Groger stated that he would telecommunications to areas. Olson state setback requirem see something in the ordinance that requires minimum distance from single-family residential munications towers would have to follow the same uildings do. Id ask Sue Webber from the Sun Post newspaper to do an lecommunication ordinance. ssion of May 27, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Comml Memorial Day. decided to cancel their May 27, 2002 VI. Adjournment . .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendments to Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) Provisions Relating to Telecommunications Towers and Antennas The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding Section 11.71 as follows. SECTION 11. 71. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to allow for and regulate the design, location, placement, construction, maintenance, and removal of telecommunications towers and antennas and to: Provide safety/emergency service through use oftelecommunications facilities Provide broader forms of communication in a more reliable way Ensure such facilities are unobtrusively located Strictly control the location and design of telecommunications facilities so that allowed facilities will not be obtrusive or visually unpleasant Provide clear standards governing all aspects of such facilities Minimize the number of new towers and to require co-locating Allow new facilities only when a documented proof of need satisfactory to the City can be shown Protect residential property and neighborhoods Promote shared use of telecommunications towers Protect property values, the image of the City, and the image along the City's principal arterials including Highways 55, 100 and 169, and Interstate 394. Subdivision 2. Definitions. A. "Antennas" means a device placed outdoors on a building or structure and used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves, excluding: satellite dishes, six feet or shorter whip antennas 1 inch or less in diameter and television antennas having a total length of not more than six feet which are located on a dwelling or other permitted building. B. "Monopole" means a free standing, self-supporting telecommunications tower which uses a single pole and does not use a lattice design and has no guy wires. C. "Satellite dish" or "satellite earth station antenna" means a round or conical or cone shaped device more than 18 inches in diameter and placed outdoors on the ground or on a building or structure and used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves. D "Telecommunication facility" means cables, wires, lines, wave guides, antennas and any other equipment or facilities associated with the transmission or reception of communications located or installed on or near a tower or antenna support structure but not including a satellite earth station antenna, (satellite dish) two meters or less in diameter. Thibault AlISOCIAlU ~....... ~. ~ ....... 1 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . E. "Telecommunications tower" means a self-supporting monopole, poles or lattice structure constructed at normal grade and extending into the air at least 12 feet and used to support telecommunications facilities. F. "Tower height" means the vertical distance from the average grade at the base of the tower to the highest point of the tower or to the highest point of the highest telecommunications facilities on the tower whichever is higher. Subdivision 3. Demonstration of Need. The applicant shall provide an analysis prepared by a radio or electrical engineer demonstrating that the proposed location of the antennas is necessary to meet the coverage and capacity needs of its system and that there is no existing antenna support structure that could adequately serve the area if antennas were placed on it. Subdivision 4. Location of New Facilities. A. The following preferences, listed in ranked order, shall be followed for a new facility (tower) and each preference shall be analyzed to determine the most appropriate location: 1. Whenever possible, an existing telecommunications tower, structure or building shall be used to support the proposed facility. If an existing building or structure is used, it shall be over 35 feet in height. Preference shall be given to existing light poles, high voltage utility towers and water towers. Public and commercial buildings four or more stories high which can more likely accommodate facilities without obstructing views or being obtrusive to views shall be given preference over shorter buildings. 2. Less Restrictive (heavier) zoning district shall be given preference over more restrictive zoning districts. 3. Sites with the least impact on residential areas. 4. In all cases, except for non-conforming existing towers, the location must meet the zoning requirements. 5. Amateur radio towers in the Residential Zoning District and Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts are not required to co-locate. Subdivision 5. Where Allowed. Telecommunications towers and antennae facilities are allowed in the following zoning districts as specified provided they meet all other requirements of this ordinance. A. Open Development Zoning District - No telecommunications tower, antennas or telecommunication facilities are allowed. Consultant's Note: This district appears to be obsolete. It is not recommended that any facilities be allowed in this district. B. Residential Zoning District and Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District. 1. Telecommunications towers - Telecommunications towers are prohibited, except an amateur radio tower not to exceed 45 feet in height used by a licensed amateur radio operator residing on the site may be permitted through a conditional use permit and subject to all other requirements of this section and Section 11.80 of this code. 2. Antennas - Antennas 10 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. Thibault .......... ~......... ~ ~ ~ 2 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . 3. Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter ~ Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter are permitted. 4. Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters - Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters in diameter may be allowed by a conditional use permit. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 10 feet. 5. Temporary Towers - Temporary mobile towers are prohibited, except that short-term temporary mobile towers may be allowed by administrative permit in emergency situations. C. Multiple Dwelling District M-l and M~2. 1. Telecommunications towers ~ Telecommunications towers may be permitted through a conditional use permit provided the height does not exceed 75 feet and subject to all other requirements of this section and Section 11.80 of this Code. 2. Antennas - Antennas 10 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. 3. Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter - Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter are permitted. 4. Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters in diameter - Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters in diameter may be allowed by a conditional use permit. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 10 feet. 5. Temporary Towers - Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 100 days and the purpose is to test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower and the height is not greater than 66 feet. D. Multiple Dwelling District M~3 and M-4 1. Telecommunications Towers ~ Telecommunications towers may be permitted through a conditional use permit provided the height does not exceed 75 feet and subject to all other requirements of this section and Section 11.80 of this Code. 2. Antennas ~ Antennas 10 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. 3. Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter ~ Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter are permitted. 4. Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters in diameter - Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters in diameter may be allowed by a conditional use permit. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 10 feet. 5. Temporary Towers ~ Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 100 days and the purpose is to test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower and the height is not greater than 66 feet. E. Institutional Zoning District - Including I-I, 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4, and excluding 1-5. 1. Telecommunications Towers ~ Telecommunications towers may be permitted through a conditional use permit provided the height does not exceed 100 feet and subject to all other requirements of this section and Section 11.80 of this Code. Thibault ASOOaA"'" .......,...... ~ ................ ........... 3 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . 2. Antennas - Antennas 10 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. 3. Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter - Satellite dishes less than 1 meter in diameter are permitted. 4. Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters in diameter - Satellite dishes 1 to 2 meters in diameter are allowed as a secondary use. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 1 0 feet. 5. Temporary Towers - Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 100 days, the purpose is to test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower and the height is not greater than 100 feet. F. Business and Professional Office Zoning District 1. Telecommunication Towers - Telecommunications towers may be permitted through a conditional use permit provided the height does not exceed 120 feet high and subject to all other requirements of this of this section and Section 11.80 of this Code. 2. Antennas - Antennas 10 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. 3. Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter - Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter are permitted. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 10 feet. 4. Satellite dishes more than 2, but less than 9 meters in diameter - Satellite dishes more than 2, but less than 9 meters in diameter may be permitted through a conditional use permit and subject to all other requirements of this Section and Section 11.80 of the Code. Iflocated on the ground, the height must not exceed 30 feet. Consultant's note: The federal law prohibits regulations "that affects" the installation of dishes two meters or less in diameter in commercial and industrial areas unless a waiver is granted Combining subsection 3 and 4 may be appropriate. 5. Temporary Towers - Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 1 00 days, the purpose is to test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower and the height is not greater than 120 feet. G. Commercial Zoning District 1. Telecommunication Towers - Telecommunications Towers may be permitted through a conditional use permit provided the height does not exceed 120 feet and subject to all other requirements of this of this section and Section 11.80 of this Code. 2. Antennas - Antennas 10 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. 3. Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter - Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter are permitted. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 10 feet. 4. Satellite dishes more than 2 but less than 9 meters in diameter - Satellite dishes more than 2 but less than 9 meters in diameter may be permitted through a conditional use permit and subject to all other requirements of this Section and Section 11.80 of the Code. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 30 feet. Consultant's note: The federal law prohibits regulations "that affects" the installation of dishes Thibault A8SOClAlES l"'*'..........~~.......... 4 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . two meters or less in diameter in commercial and industrial areas unless a waiver is granted. Combining subsection 3 and 4 may be appropriate. 5. Temporary Towers - Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 100 days, the purpose is to test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower and the height is not greater than 120 feet. H. Light Industrial Zoning District 1. Telecommunication Towers - Telecommunications towers may be permitted through a conditional use permit provided the height does not exceed 200 feet and subject to all other requirements of this of this section and Section 11.80 of this Code. 2. Antennas - Antennas 15 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. 3. Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter - Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter are permitted. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 15 feet. 4. Satellite dishes more than 2 but less than 9 meters in diameter - Satellite dishes more than 2 but less than 9 meters in diameter may be permitted through a conditional use permit and subject to all other requirements of this Section and Section 11.80 of the Code. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 30 feet. Consultant's note: The federal low prohibits regulations "that affects" the installation of dishes two meters or less in diameter in commercial and industrial areas unless a waiver is granted. Combining subsection 3 and 4 may be appropriate. 5. Temporary Towers - Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 100 days, the purpose is to test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower and the height is not greater than 200 feet. I. Industrial Zoning District 1. Telecommunication Towers - Telecommunications towers may be permitted through a conditional use permit provided the height does not exceed 200 feet and subject to all other requirements of this of this section and Section 11.80 of this Code. 2. Antennas - Antennas 18 feet in length or less are allowed as a secondary use when located on an existing structure. 3. Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter - Satellite dishes 2 meters or less in diameter are permitted. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 18 feet. 4. Satellite dishes more than 2 but less than 9 meters in diameter - Satellite dishes more than 2 but less than 9meters in diameter may be permitted through a conditional use permit and subject to all other requirements of this Section and Section 11.80 of the Code. If located on the ground, the height must not exceed 30 feet. Consultant's note: The federal low prohibits regulations "that affects" the installation of dishes two meters or less in diameter in commercial and industrial areas unless a waiver is granted. Combining subsection 3 and 4 may be appropriate. 5. Temporary Towers - Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 1 00 days, the purpose is to Thibault AS8OCOA1E8 ""'*'....,...~~......... 5 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower and the height is not greater than 200 feet. J. Radio and Television Zoning District Consultant's Note: It is recommended that this district be eliminated or revised. The district has no height limitation and no guidelines as to where the district should be allowed. Thus, a telecommunications facility could be sought by applying for this zoning district on a piece of property. The City has at least the following choices: I. Leave the district as is 2. Delete the district 3. Amend the district 4. Phase out the district Subdivision 6. Design and Performance Standards. Design and performance standards are hereby established to meet the objectives of the City and the purposes and other provisions of this chapter. A. Facilities. If a new telecommunications tower over 60 feet in height is to be constructed: 1. the telecommunications tower must be designed to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and antennas for at least one additional comparable user; 2. the telecommunications tower must be designed to accept antennas mounted at additional heights; 3. the applicant1the telecommunications tower owner, the landower1 and their successors must allow the shared use of the telecommunications tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use1 must submit a dispute over the potential terms and conditions to binding arbitration, and must sign the conditional use permit agreeing to these requirements. B. Placement. New telecommunications towers shall be placed on the site or within the site so as to be visually as unobtrusive as possible and existing trees and landscaping which can screen the telecommunication tower shall be preserved. C. Interference. The placement, design1 use and operation of the telecommunications facilities shall comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. D. Setbacks. 1. No telecommunication tower shall be located in the required minimum front, side, or rear yard setback of any parcel. 2. Exceptions - Use of existing light poles, high voltage poles or towers, and telecommunications towers are exempt from the setback requirements provided that such pole or telecommunication tower is not increased in height. 3. Satellite Dish - In the Institutional, Business and Industrial zones, no satellite dish greater than two meters shall be located in the minimum required front or side-yard setbacks. E. Ground Structures. If the ground structure is a building, the design shall be compatible with the principal building. If no principal building is on the site, the building must be compatible with near-by buildings. Structures which are not buildings must be designed to be compatible with the area. Thibault All8OClA1E8 .........,......,.~.~........... 6 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting1 5/13/02 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . F. Structural. Telecommunications towers shall be approved by a licensed and qualified professional structural engineer to conform to the lateral and other structure standards of the most current uniform building code and to be structurally sound for conditions reasonably likely to occur on or near the site and be capable of carrying at least four separate antenna arrays if the tower is higher than 130 feet. All other applicable requirements of other federal, state and other regulatory agencies must be met. G. Guy Wires. Guy wires are prohibited for new telecommunications towers. H. Security. Reasonable security measures shall be provided. If fencing is used, it must be decorative and landscaping shall be used to soften its impact. I. Lighting. No telecommunications towers or antennas shall be artificially illuminated unless required by law or the Federal Aviation Administration. This provision does not prevent general exterior lighting of a building or steeple to meet aesthetic or functional objectives provided such lighting otherwise meets the provisions of the code. J. Signs. No sign shall be located on a telecommunications tower or antenna except to provide necessary information as required to meet federal, state or local laws. Consultant's note: What information, if any, would the City like displayed? Consider including an information / emergency number, the conditional use permit or resolution number, if any. On a case by case, the City could, if it so desires, require certain information to be posted K. Landscaping and Screening. All telecommunication towers and related building facilities shall be landscaped and screened with natural vegetation to lessen the visual impact. The natural vegetation on the site shall be documented on the site plans. Suitable existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible based on an analysis of the site. New landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan, which will be reviewed as part of the conditional use permit application. L. Color. The finished color for the telecommunication tower shall be natural for the environment and setting and shall be permanent e.g. anodized, baked enamel. M. Access. Adequate access to the facility must be provided from a public right of way to the facility consistent with the type of facility constructed. N. Parking. No off-street parking is required for telecommunications towers or antennas. However, if off-street parking is provided, it shall have a suitable base and be landscaped along the outside perimeter. O. Antenna Locations and Mounting. Locating and mounting antennas on buildings and structures are governed by the following: 1. If mounted at the top of a telecommunication tower so that any portion of the antenna extends above the top of the tower, such extension is included in determining the height of the tower. 2. If mounted on a public water tower, light pole, high voltage utility pole, steeple or similar structure, preference shall be given to placing the antennas on the side or on the support portion of the structure instead of on top of the facility. 3. If mounted on a building, preference shall be given to placing the antenna on the side of the building mounted flush with the building and colored to match the background instead of a location on top of the building. However any antenna mounted on the side of a building shall not extend above the roofline. (Satellite dishes may be more appropriately located on the roof and screened from view.) Thibault ASSOClAtEB l.JIWoIPIInIWlljI~~........ 7 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e;~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . 4. If mounted on the top of a building, preference shall be given to placing the antennas in the center portion of the building. In no event shall a rooftop antenna be located closer than 10 feet from all outside edges/perimeter of the building. 5. Antennas located on the side or top of a building or structure shall be designed, colored, and maintained to blend in with the color and architecture of the building or structure. Subdivision 7. Additional Standards for Public Property. A. . Declaration - The City recognizes that in certain locations and in certain circumstances it is appropriate public policy and in the best interest of the community to allow using some public land and structures for telecommunication facilities because it may provide efficient use of resources and may reduce clutter by using existing facilities. Accordingly, the City supports consideration of the following when applications meet all other provisions of the ordinance: 1. Allowing high voltage electric utility tower, some of which are in public rights of way, to be used as telecommunications towers. 2. Encouraging! Allowing existing Mn/DOT and City light poles within the right of way of principal roads including Trunk Highway 100, 169,55 and Interstate 394 to be used as telecommunications towers. 3. Encouraging the use of the tower located on Mn/DOT's property at the northwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 100 and Duluth Street. 4. Allowing existing City light poles to be used as telecommunications towers but not in the Residential Zoning District, the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District nor the neighborhood parks. 5. Allowing public land and structures to be used for telecommunications structures, but not in neighborhood parks as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. On school sites, telecommunications towers shall not exceed 100 feet. Subdivision 8. Non-conforming Facilities. Legal non-conforming towers may be structurally altered to carry additional antenna arrays provided: 1. The height is not increased. 2. The location of the tower and the proposed change is not adverse to the use and enjoyment of the adjacent property. 3. The proposed change and plan include meeting design standards of the ordinance to the extent reasonably possible. 4. A review is made by the City allowing the change and subject to plans and conditions agreeable to the City and applicant. Subdivision 9. Review Procedure. A. Administrative Approval. An applicant seeking approval of a facility which can be administratively approved (approved without a conditional use permit) shall follow the instruction and requirements contained in the application form provided by the City. The application and plans must meet all of the requirements of this Ordinance. An application found to comply with all the provisions governing administrative approval Thibault """"",,lU lMiIeft~~~.~ 8 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . shall be approved by the City staff member designated by the City to review such applications. Approval shall be in writing, identifying the specific facility approved, the location, mounting height and other pertinent information and any condition of the approval. Denial shall be in writing and shall specify the reason for denial. If the requested facility is to be located on City property, the agreement allowing the facility shall be approved and executed prior to issuing the permit. B. Conditional Use Permit. Telecommunication towers and antennas which require a conditional use permit are subject to the conditional use permit requirements specified in Section 11.80 of this Code, provided however that all other requirements of Section 11.71 of the Code are complied with. Subdivision 10. Inspection. The City may inspect towers, antenna support facilities, and the property on which such facilities are located to determine compliance with the City Code, its ordinances, regulations, and conditions of approval. The City may require repair or modification of the facility, site maintenance, or removal of the facility based on the results of the inspection. Subdivision 11. Maintenance. Telecommunications towers and antennas and the site upon which they are located must be maintained in accordance with the following provisions: A. Tower owners must employ ordinary and reasonable care in construction and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely to cause damage, injuries or nuisances to the public. B. Tower owners must install and maintain towers, telecommunications facilities, fixtures and other equipment in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all Federal Communications Commission, state and local regulations, and in such a manner that they will not interfere with the use of other property. C. Towers, telecommunications facilities, antenna support structures, and landscaped areas must be kept and maintained in good condition, order and repair. D. Maintenance or construction on a tower, telecommunications facilities or antenna support structure must be performed by qualified maintenance and construction personnel. E. Towers and antennas must comply with radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission.. F. If the use of a tower is discontinued by the tower owner or lessee, the tower owner or lessee must provide written notice to the City of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use will be discontinued. Subdivision 12. Removal. Any tower or antenna which is not used for 12 months shall be removed along with any associated above ground facilities within 90 days of said 12 months unless an extension is approved by the City Council prior to the expiration of said 90 days. Failure to remove a tower or antenna as provided by this subdivision shall be deemed a nuisance and the City may act to abate such nuisance and require removal at the property owner's expense. Thibault -.... UIbtn.,..,.,. ~ ~ HGuIlIIIi 9 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .i 23 . Section 2. Chapter 11 of the City Code is amended in Section 11.03, Subd. 35 "Definitions, Essential Services" to read as follows. 35. "Essential Services" - Structures or facilities owned by a government entity, a nonprofit organization, a corporation, or any other entity defined as a public utilityt and used in connection with the collection, delivery, generation, production, storage, or transmission of electricity, electronic signals, gas, oil, sewage, or water. f..Jso, antennas and supporting stnIetui'es f-or the transmission of cellular telephone, radio, or television signals to the general public. Essential services shall be broken down into classes as follows: Class I - pipes or wires for cable television, electric power, gas, sewer, telephone lines or water services; together with supporting poles or structures and necessary related equipment; located within a public right-of-way or utility easement and in full conformance with any applicable local, state, or federal regulations. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Class II - Public utility facilities completely enclosed within buildings not to exceed 12 feet in height or 600 square feet in gross floor area; or cellular telephone, radio, or teleyision signal transmission towers not to exceed 120 feet in height as measured from the ground leyel to the highest point of the structures (including antenna), and including necessary equipment completely enclosed within buildings not to exceed 12 feet in height or 600 square feet in gross floor area. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Class III - Peaking stations; substations; switching stations; cellular telephone,commercial radio, or television signal transmission towers not to exceed 300 feet in height, and related equipment; and associated office or technical facilities for any of the preceding. Consultant's note: After review of these changes it may be appropriate to consider other changes. Section 3 City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled" Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, bv reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4 (pending) Section 5. Chapter 11 of the City Code Section 11.40 Radio and Television Zoning District is hereby repealed. Consultant's Note: This section would be included if the City decides to eliminate (repeal) this district. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect after its passage and publication. This ordinance is adopted by the City Council this _ th day of _, 2002. Thibault AOSOClA1E8 UIIlM........ ~ ~ ......... 10 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 1 . 2 Linda R. Loomis, Mayor 3 4 5 ATTEST: 6 7 8 9 10 Donald G. Taylor, City Clerk 11 12 Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post on , 2002 13 14 . . Thibault """",,,,1U ~..........~~........ 11 Draft for Planning Commission Meeting, 5/13/02 . . . distribution is dependent upon a number of factors such as physical conditions, natural amenities, opportunities for acquisition and public demand. B. PARK LOCATIONS AND ACREAGE Golden Valley's park system was developed with the neighborhood in mind. Attractive park facilities (community and neighborhood parks) and nature areas are scattered throughout the City in order that the maximum number of residents are provided with close proximity to the nearest recreational area. The following list describes the existing park system in the City. This includes a park's classification, location and size. Generally, the City's community parks are larger than the neighborhood park facilities. Each facility is geographically located on the map, Exhibit A. Commu nity Parks.......... ......... Location ... ........................... ..... ..... ........ Acres Brookview Park ........................Winnetka Ave. & Brookview Pkwy. ...........33.0 Gearty Park.... ........................ ..3101 Regent.. ..... ............... ........... ....... ...... 4.7 Hampshire Park .......................Olympia & Louisiana.................................11.0 Lakeview Park............... ........... Olympia & Hillsboro....... ........ ....... .............5.0 Lions Park..... ...... ..................... Harold & Glenwood ........... ...... ................. 20.0 Medley Hills Park .....................Ensign & 23rd Ave. ....................................11.0 Schaper Park ...........................Hwy. 55 and Ottawa .................................14.0 Scheid Park..............................Duluth & Toledo........................................ 11.4 Wesley Park.................. ........... Wesley Dr. & Orkla .............. ..................... 19.0 Neighborhood Parks Glenview Terrace Park.............Zenith & Manor Dr. ....................................5.0 Golden Oaks Park....................Valders & Plymouth ...................................2.0 Natchez Park ................. ......... .201 Natchez ............... .............. .................6.0 North Tyrol Park ............... ........4300 Sunset Ridge ............................... ..... 9.4 Seeman Park ...........................1101 Florida Ave. ......................................4.6 3 . South Tyrol Park ......................1501 Kaltern lane .....................................2.9 Stockman Park........................ .Adell & Major............................................. 1.3 Wildwood Park ......... ................ Duluth & Pennsylvania. ........... ..... ........ ..... 5.0 Yosemite Park...... ....................351 Yosemite.. ...... ........ ............. .......... ...... 1.2 St. Croix ...................................5850 St. Croix Ave..................................... 1.0 Special Use Facilities Brookview Golf Course ................100 Brookview Parkway ......................146.7 Honeywell Little League Area ......6600 Sandburg Road ...........................11.0 . Open Space/Nature Areas Bassett Creek Nature Area ..........2130 Zane Ave. .....................................7.6 Briarwood Wildlife/Bird Sanct.......2500 Unity ............................................19.0 Honeywell Pond ...........................1800 Douglas Dr....................................3.6 Laurel Avenue Ponds................... 7100 Laurel Ave. ..................................15.2 Laurel Avenue (Kings Creek) .......6200 Laurel Ave. ...................................2.0 South Cortlawn .. ....................... ...6600 laurel Ave. S. . ................ ............. 17.3 Mary Hills Park.............................Golden Valley Rd. & Bonnie lane ........14.2 Outlot #1 ......................................2301 Noble Ave. N. ...............................2.9 Pennsylvania Woods ...................23rd & Rhode Island ..............................22.6 Rice lake Nature Area.................4120 Bassett Creek Dr. .........................9.3 St. Croix Nature Area ...................5850 St. Croix Ave................................. 1.0 Tree Farm ....................................Plymouth Ave. and Orkla Dr. .................2.0 Western Avenue Marsh ............... Western & Winnetka .............................21.0 . In terms of acreage, it would appear that the City of Golden Valley is amply provided for in total amounts of dedicated park and open space land. Of the established parks, nature areas and special use facilities owned and operated by the City of Golden Valley, there are a total of 462 acres. Of this, 166.5 acres are in community and neighborhood parks, 137.7 acres in nature areas, and 158 acres in Brookview Golf Course and the Honeywell Little League area, special use facilities. 4 Uq/~O/U~ ~~;q~ r^A L~O"VV q[,J VV' . - - - 3400 CITY CENTER 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3796 612 343-2800 FAx: 612 333-0066 www.gpmlaw.com Peter K. Beck 612 343-537.4 peter .beck@gpmlaw.com April 18, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Dan Olson City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 . Re: Proposed Telecommunications Ordinance Dear Dan: This letter is to follow up on our telephone conversation yesterday and to paSs on, in writing, the few remaining comments I have on the proposed telecommunications ordinance. These comments are as follows: Subdivision 5. Subdivision 5 prohibits temporary mobile towers in one- and two-family residential zoning districts, and requires an administrative permit for temporary mobile towers in other zoning districts, The language seems to assume that temporary mobile . towers would be used exclusively for test purposes. However, on rare occasion, temporary mobile towers (known in the industry as "cellular on wheelsu or "COWSU) are used to provide emergency communication services in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency which knocks out. an existing cell site or requires additional wireless' capacity. We suggest that the ordinance contain some language which would allow the immediate, short-term deployment of temporary mobile towers in the event of an emergency, and provide for the emergency deployment to be extended by administrative permit. . Subdivision 6.A.3. We share the concerns expressed by Mr. Coyle regarding the City's authority to require binding arbitration language in a contract between two private entities. Most, ifnot all, ofthe wireless providers serving Golden Valley are parties to existing national collocation agreements. I do not mow whether all or any of those GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MooTY & BENNETT, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 04/18/02 11:41 PAX L~O:>UU ~ vVoJ . Mr. Dan Olson Page 2 April 18, 2002 agreements contain arbitration clauses. However, I am certain that the terms of these agreements could not be rewritten for a specific cell site. Section 6.B. As we discussed, I suggest that telecommunication towers and accessory structures be subject to the City's set-back requirements for accessory structures along side and rear yards, rather than for principal structures. This would provide added flexibility and the opportunity to push the facilities further into the comers of industrial, commercial and institutional properties. We have had instances where setback requirements'have forced facilities into the middle of parking lots when they would have been less visible tucked into the comer of a'property or along the side of a parking lot. Section 6.0. I share Mr. Coyle's concern about the 10-foot setback for rooftop antennas. Setting antennas back from the edge of the rooftop does create a shadow area around the building, a problem which is exacerbated if the roofhas a parapet. Allowing rooftop antennas to be located in the most efficient location possible will maximize the efficiency of the cell site and reduce the need for additional cell sites, with minor visual effect. . Section 7.A.2 and 4. These sections encourage and allow "existing" light poles to be used as telecommunication towers. However, as we discussed, existing light poles are not strong enough to support communication antennas. Existing light poles need to be replaced with stronger structures which can support both antennas and lights. Therefore, we suggest the language be revised to allow existing light poles to be replaced. Furthermore, replacement poles should be allowed to a height which will allow the antennas to function. Many MnDOT light poles are high enough. However, most city light poles are at too Iowa height to be used for telecommunication purposes. Therefore, we suggest allowing existing poles to be replaced with new poles at least 60 feet in height. . Section 7.A.4 and 5. These sections prohibit telecommunication towers, even replacing light poles, in neighborhood parks. We suggest that this prohibition be removed, for two reasons. First, there are many examples where telecommunications facilities have been installed in neighborhood parks, often by replacing an existing light pole, without having an adverse impact on the park. Many communities have taken advantage of this opportunity to generate revenue from the lease of land for this use and/or to have telecommunication companies build additional storage facilities for park use. Second, and more importantly, the city, as the owner of park land, can always prevent a telecommunication facility from being installed in a neighborhood park if it would be inappropriate to do so. The city would simply decline to lease space for this use. Therefore, no control would be lost by allowing for the possibility oftelecommunication facilities in neighborhood parks in the ordinance. 04/18/02 11:42 FAX . . . L(';~:>UU Mr. Dan Olson Page 3 April 18, 2002 Those are all of the comments I have on the current proposed telecommunications ordinance. Once again, thank you very much for your careful consideration of my comments on the earlier draft: Sincerely, GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A. By: ?~~ Peter K. Beck PKB:ch cc: Rick Sullivan John McDonough Mark Loscbky GP:884325 vI ~UUq LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW . PETER J. COYLE DIR. DIAL (952) 896-3214 E-MAIL pcoyle@lhdl.com 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (952) 835-3800 FAX (952) 896-3333 April 12, 2002 Mr. Dan Qlson City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427-4588 Re: Proposed Amended Telecommunications Ordinance Dear Dan: Our firm represents V oiceStream Wireless Corp. in connection with land use regulatory matters in this marketplace. This letter provides VoiceStream's comments regarding the City of Golden Valley's draft amendment of its Telecommunications Ordinance. Please make these comments part of the record in this matter. Subdivision 1. Purpose. . The policy objective of preventing "obtrusive or visually unpleasant" towers seems unattainable. Towers must be visually obtrusive to function. Recommend this objective be stricken since it is effectively covered by other policy objectives. Subdivision 3. Demonstration of Need. This policy should be amended to address the situation in which an existing structure may exist, but the applicant is, after reasonable diligence, unable to gain access rights to such structure. Subdivision 5. Where Allowed. B. Residential Zoning District and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. The policy of not allowing commercial wireless facilities in Residential Districts is flawed. Consumers increasingly want to use their wireless phones at home; some accommodation of wireless facilities to serve consumers where they live is needed, even if only to allow replacement poles in public rights-of-way, subject to a reasonable height limit, ie. 60 feet. VoiceStream (and other companies) is using ROW installations in this market and envisions that they will increasingly be necessary in the future. Subdivision 6. Design and Performance Standards. A. Facilities. . (3) The City does not have the authority to impose a binding arbitration requirement on private parties to a contract. I am unaware of any situation in this market over the past five year under which . . . LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Dan Olson April 12, 2002 Page 2 this provision would have been helpful or invoked. All of the major carriers have master co-location agreements, which typically specify lease terms. B. Placement. The reference to tree preservation should be modified to encourage the preservation of trees, "if possible." O. Antenna Locations and Mounting. (4) Some building owners refuse to allow fayade installations. Imposing a lO-foot roof-top setback effectively eliminates the value of the roof-top location since the setback will create a "shadow" below the building and adjacent ROW/parking area. The result may well be that a suitable structure is no longer technically feasible for antennas. Recommend removing the 10-foot setback. Subdivision 7. Additional Standards for Public Property. A. Declaration. (4) This provision should be amended to allow replacement light poles at a height of not greater than 60 feet, without limitation as to Zoning District. See comments on serving Residential Districts above. (5) The limitation on use of public parks removes one of the best locations for siting necessary facilities. Aside from forcing consideration of a more obtrusive location, the City is denied potential rental income from a park location. Thank you for allowing V oiceStream to submit written comments relating to the proposed amendment of the City's Telecommunications Ordinance. Please advise whether any further changes are made prior to the public hearing on April 22, 2002. ~~ Peter J. Coyle, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Cc: Julie Townsend 759533.1