Loading...
08-26-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday,August26,2002 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - August 12, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Continued 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. III. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment, Property Rezoning, and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would first like to delete the Radio and Television zoning district from the Zoning Code. Then secondly, the City would like to rezone 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North to Commercial. Finally, the City is requesting that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map be changed for 2510 Mendelssohn from Light Industrial to Commercial. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business A. Discussion of possible changes to the Zoning Code. B. Information about first ring suburbs forum in Richfield - September 9, 2002. VI. Adjournment r . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 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 August 12, 2002. Vice Chair Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Those present were Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, R Also present were Director of Planning and Development, M Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Abse Commissioner Hoffman nd Shaffer. ity Planner, entel and I. Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2002 Plan MOVED by Groger, seconded by Rasmussen approve the July 22, 2002 minutes as submit Applicant: Address: innetka Avenue, Golden Valley, MN d like to demolish the existing buildings to allow 'th a drive-through facility, as well as leasable office Purpose: licants are requesting to remove the buildings located at 925, nue and construct a two-story office building. He stated that oned Light Industrial which does not permit banks as a ,J&~nal use. He explained that both the General Land Use Plan Map ap would have to be amended to Industrial and that the City Council pplication to amend both maps at the same meeting the General Plan for the PUD is approved. Grimes stated th 955 and 957 the prope permitted 0 and th onin would a of Develop Grimes discussed the site plan and stated that the entire site is 88,375 square feet. He explained that the reason this proposal is a PUD is because it qualifies as one in the Valley Square Redevelopment Area. Grimes stated that the applicant is proposing to have four drive-thru lanes and one ATM lane and that all access to the site would "be from one driveway on Lewis Road. Grimes discussed the setback requirements and stated that this proposal is not meeting the setback requirement of 35 feet on 10th Street and they are not meeting the setback . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 2 requirement of 20 feet on Lewis Road. All of the other setback requirements are being met. He stated that Central Bank plans to mitigate the 10th Street variance by proposing a three to four foot high berm along 10th Street to help screen cars at the drive-thru lanes. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals did approve a variance for this site to allow for the parking lot and two existing buildings to be expanded to within ten feet of Lewis Road. Grimes discussed the sidewalk plan and stated that the applica landscape a gateway to tie into the Golden Valley streetscap Avenue. He discussed the parking requirements and state parking spaces and that 72 spaces is the required amoun believes that 68 spaces are adequate because much 0 the drive-thru lanes. sing to g Winnetka proposing 68 hat staff will be done from Grimes stated that buildings or structures coul~.'!ft that this proposal only covers 10.3% of lot. H 4' al surface" on the site than what currently exists t th a ponding area to help reduce the neg than 50% of a lot and there would be. more "hard entral Bank would be putting in e environment. Grimes stated that he would like to rezoning of the property has to Development. er condition of approval that states the Council along with the General Plan of Eck stated he didn't have seemed to him there woul along 10th Street. c with the setback along Lewis Road but that it way the applicant could meet the setback requirement Groger stated tha north side of is trying to eard there are plans regarding changing some areas on the esidential. Grimes stated he hadn't heard that and the City area. glneer for the project from BKV Group, 222 N. 2nd Street, d that if the new proposed building were to meet the 35-foot setback requiremen ong 10th Street it would affect the size of the pond and would have grading issues. Eck stated another option would be to make the building smaller. Barry Morgan, applicant's representative from Master Civil & Construction Engineering, 2104 Fourth Ave. S., Minneapolis stated that there is a 50-foot setback from the top of the bank of Bassett Creek so they are constrained if they reduce that setback and it won't change the size of the pond. Eck asked if the pond would not meet the watershed requirements if the building were moved ten feet to the south. Morgan said that is correct and clarified that they don't have ten feet to work with in the pond area. . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 3 Shaffer stated that he is concerned about traffic backing up on Lewis and then on to 10th Street. He stated that the stacking of cars does not work exactly as it is shown on the plan. He added that if all of the drive-thru lanes were open it wouldn't be a problem, but if only a couple of lanes were open there would be no room for stacking. Morgan explained that Central Bank is a small bank and based on their anticipated growth this site is triple the size they would need. Shaffer suggested having two entrances to the site or a better location for the proposed entrance shown on the pi Redmond stated that if another entrance were to be added they would los rking spaces. Morgan stated that they could look at relocating the proposed e t it would affect the flow of the drive-thru lanes. Grimes stated that the city engineer has looked at the p see any problems with the proposed location of the one that before this proposal goes on to the General P Van wormer look at the driveway entrance as entrances. . d and does not . Grimes suggested hat Traffic Engineer, Glen possibility of having two Groger stated that he counted 70 parki applicant if they anticipate that there that they were striving to meet the make sure that other tenants in e plans submitted and asked the much of a need. Redmond stated ing requirements and that they need to ave enough parking spaces. Groger asked if the bank w they would only have inte Y public meeting rooms. Redmond stated no, ooms. Rasmussen asked a Redmond stated h lower and would ations of the building and the gateway landscaping. uld be at the same elevation and the gateway would be age on it. terms of signage applicants are told that they need to follow the size of their building. e public hearing. Steve Rogers, 8109 Lewis Road, Anchor Tool & Plastics stated that they have been a tenant at there current location for 30 years. He stated that they have up to eight semi- trucks per day coming to their location and with the traffic the bank may generate it could be a potential safety issue. He asked if anyone had done any traffic studies on Lewis Road. He stated that by the applicant not meeting the setback requirements they would lose some maneuvering space and that they don't want the liability. He explained that he is not against the proposal, he just wanted to make sure that his concerns were addressed. . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 4 Shaffer closed the public hearing. Rasmussen asked if there is on-street parking in that area. Grimes stated he believes there is parking allow on one side or both sides of the streets. He stated that the City could change the signs to no on street parking. He explained that the City has learned from other bank proposals that there is a slow letting out of cars for the drive-thru lanes and that they don't all come out of the driveway at the same time. dded that there could potentially be traffic conflicts, similar to the concerns disciously, anywhere in the City. Shaffer stated that he is not so much end ac,; ut parking but the entrance location. McAleese stated that Shaffer ha o~hat most cars would be turning right to get to Winnetka Avenue. Grime h b. uld have Glen Van Wormer and City Engineer Jeff Oliver take a look a Atrance could be moved or if another one could be added. Eck stated he was concerned about being pre Rasmussen stated it would be hard for the a in favor of the proposal. v setback area. o anything else and that she is Groger stated that he is usually cone added along Lewis Road in this pr He stated his preference would that heavily traveled. He state proposal. etback areas but the berm being help mitigate the landscaping being lost. p e driveway because Lewis Road is not is in favor of recommending approval of this MOVED by Groger, seco the applicant's reque Avenue to allow ~ r t office space. y McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve Lsh the existing buildings at 925, 955 and 957 Winnetka tion of a bank facility with 5 drive-thru lanes, and leased a ions and requirements set out in the Engineering Memo from City Oliver, PE, and dated 7/30/02. 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson and dated 7/24/02. 3. The Building Board of Review, as part of the building permit process, must approve the landscape plan. 4. The site plan and preliminary elevation plans prepared by BKV Group for the Central . Bank (undated) shall become a part of this approval. . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 5 5. The preliminary plat and preliminary grading plan prepared by Master Civil Construction Engineering and dated 7/19/02 shall become a part of this approval. 6. The approval is subject any other state, federal.and local ordinances, regulations or laws with authority over this development. 7. A traffic study by SEH Traffic Engineer, Glen Van Wormer, sha become a part of this approval. 8. The Zoning Map and the General Land Use Plan map s before the General Plan of Development is approved. ed to Industrial v. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text A Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to rev of the Zoning Code ecommunication requirements He referred. to the new telecommu had requested that the words "s other than that change, the tele Planning Commission has r inance and stated that Verizon Wireless be added to the definition section and that ication ordinance is the same version that the discussed in the past. McAleese referred to pag asked if the setbacks reworded to be th sa tion 11.30, Subd. 7(8)(1)) of Olson's memo and ess and Professional Office zoning district could be Commercial zoning district has been rewritten. at the wording should be the same in both the Commercial ofessional Offices zoning districts. Olson stated he would requested. III. ublic Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to delete the Open Development zoning district from the Zoning Code. Olson stated that there are no properties in the City zoned Open Development. He explained that this zoning district was once used as a holding district for undeveloped land and that the Open Development zoning district is now obsolete. . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 6 Shaffer opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one he closed the pUblic hearing. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve The City's request to delete the Open Development zoning district from the Zoning Code. Purpose: The City would first like to delete th district from the Zoning Code. The to rezone 2510 Mendelssohn the underlying zoning for t Industrial, and rezone P. Finally, the City is reques Plan Map be chan to Commercial a Industrial. q,fllteleVision zoning [II; the City would like orth to Commercial, change r ion of P.U.D. 93 to Light -24-13-0016 to Industrial. e Comprehensive Land. Use endelssohn from Light Industrial rth Lilac Drive from Industrial to Light IV. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendme Rezonings, and Comprehensive land Use Plan Map Applicant: City of Golden Valley . Olson stated that the Radio an district for towers. He state districts. He discussed th ion zoning district's purpose was to have a ould like to regulate towers in all of the zoning rties affected by this proposed change. McAleese asked if it' cessary to delete the Radio and Television zoning district and if the rop are zoned that way could be grandfathered in. Olson stated that the C y has recommended that the three properties in question be rezoned and t be deleted so future applicants wouldn't be able request a rezoning t d Television zoning district. McAleese referred to Subdivision 3 of the Ra levision zoning district and stated that the part about any portion of a z . g or nce which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district fr ential, two family residential, and multiple dwelling sub-districts should be change m requiring a 2/3rd' majority affirmative vote of all members of the Council to the "majority" of all members of the Council. Grimes agreed with McAleese and stated that it would be corrected. Rasmussen asked if other cities have a Radio and Television zoning district. Olson stated that he didn't know of any other cities that used a Radio and Television zoning district and that most cities have a Telecommunication Ordinance. . . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 7 Shaffer asked if the three properties had to be rezoned before the Planning Commission could vote on deleting the Radio and Television zoning district. Olson stated that was correct. Olson referred to the 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North property and stated that the City would like to rezone this property from the Radio & Television zoning district to the Commercial zoning district. He stated that the Comprehensive La would also need to be changed from Light Industrial to Com mer Olson explained that under the new Telecommunication OrdilJa property, which is 120 feet in height, could only be built in t ~i\'C district with a Conditional Use Permit. He further stated t only be required to receive a Conditional Use Permit if t build a higher tower on the site. e Plan Map . property. er on this zoning on this site would xwere to propose to Groger asked if a tower could be rebuilt to the stated that according to the City Attorney the Use Permit. g it were damaged. Olson rebuilt without a Conditional McAleese stated that the rezoning an could be put together in one motio sive Land Use Plan Map requests Tony Dorland, Moss & Barnett, concern is keeping the swit Telecommunication Ordi words "switch station". H Subdivision 5(E)(6), nting Verizon Wireless stated that his main cated on this property, He stated that the n scussed at this meeting does not include the ted adding language regarding switch stations to ommercial zoning district. Shaffer asked if stated that t term switc switch statio togeth ions could be added to the definition section. McAleese ict that wouldn't allow switch stations. Grimes stated that the d not be used with language involving towers, because a ~wer could be two separate things, and don't necessarily always go Rasmussen ated that she thinks the City should be amenable to adding switch stations to the Telecommunication Ordinance because Verizon is doing business on the property already. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one he closed the public hearing. Olson next discussed the property with a P.I.D. number of 19-029-24-13-0016, which is located north of Room and Board. He stated that staff is proposing to rezone the property to Industrial like everything else in that area. He stated that this proposal does . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 8 not call for an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map. He discussed the setback requirements for the Industrial zoning district and stated that the requirements would be the same as in the Radio and Television zoning district. However, there are no height restrictions currently in the Radio and Television zoning district and the owner would need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit if they proposed to build a higher tower than is currently the case. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one hearing. the public MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Groger and motio approve the request to rezone P.I.O. number 19-029-2 Television zoning district to the Industrial zoning district. n ated that staff is not ing zoning of the western t Industrial. He stated that prehensive Land Use Plan Map n added that the City Attorney has property would remain in effect even if the n is property were changed to Light g zoning could be changed to Business and . n of the P.U.O. Olson said Light Industrial was sest of this site. Olson referred to the property at 917 North Lil proposing to change the P.U.O. zoning, just t portion of the property from Radio and Televi there would also need to be an amend changing it from Industrial to Light Ind stated that the P.U.O. Permit grant underlying zoning for the wester Industrial. Groger asked if the Professional to. match the more in keeping with oth f the property could ever stop what they are currently ustrial instead. Olson stated that they would have to nd that they can't just change what is there without having Is. McAleese asked if the owner of the property would have . amendment process if they wanted to double the height of tated that was correct. Rasmussen asked if doing and do sOrll~thi amend the P.U.O": public hearin to go throu their towers. t the only access to the western portion of this property is an easement a here is no access to a public street so the idea that someone would want to build something else on this property is minimal. Neal Blanchett, Larkin, Daly, Hoffman, representing KQRS stated that his main concern is keeping the flexibility they have now. He stated that most of his concerns have.been addressed and that they are not driving this change, the City is. He stated that they are not planning anything for that portion of the property, but they would like it to be zoned Light Industrial versus Business and Professional Office because there is a higher tower height limit and more closely matches what currently exits on the property. . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 9 Shaffer opened the public hearing. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street stated he is concerned that if the underlying zoning is changed to Light Industrial someone could fill in the marsh area and develop the land. Shaffer stated that he would guess that it would be virtually impossible to build anything on the western portion of the property. Justin Ronning, 5645 Lindsay Street stated that any proposed ~ difficult for the City to turndown if it fit into the Light Industrial that because the property is a wetland he would like to exp this property. He added that he doesn't think that the pro stop any future development and that he is opposed to changed to Light Industrial. t would be t. He stated ng districts for wetland would g zoning being Hearing and seeing no one, Shaffer closed the The draft Telecommunication Ordinance was staff report and discussed item number residential properties. He stated that possibility of monopoles collapsin again. Olson referred to his Ii, g the setback requirements from some more research on the is his opinion that it would not happen. towers, 50 feet from residential areas, is good at each proposal individually. Olson explained av a setback of 100 feet away from residential o into a place where the City doesn't want it. Shaffer flexibility to keep towers from ending up in odd places process would allow the City to have some control. s seen other cities ordinances where they set a specific t they also have a preference of the minimum setback they areas. Olson suggested expanding Subdivision 4(C) of the .ordinance. Groger stated that he doesn't t planning but that he is oka that if the towers were re areas it might force a tow added that there has and the Conditio McAleese stated amount of s would allo . Telecommu Shaffer hearing. e public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one he closed the public Olson stated it would make sense to put language about switch stations in more than just the Commercial zoning district. McAleese suggested adding the switch station language to the Commercial, Light Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts. Grimes stated that,those would be good districts to allow .switch stations in because they wouldn't have to go through the variance process. Olson referred to page 4, item D1 of the Telecommunication ordinance and discussed the language written about telecommunication facilities. Dorland stated that he doesn't like words "facility station" because it changes it from a permitted us to a conditional use" . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 10 McAleese stated he would prefer to table the Telecommunication Ordinance and have staff make the changes that have been suggested. Shaffer clarified that the following items were being tabled: The rezoning of 2510 Mendelssohn, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment for 2510 Mendelssohn, the request to repeal the Radio and Television zoning district and the Telecommunication Ordinance. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Rasmussen and motion a table the items listed above. -- Short Recess -- VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and i Council, Board of Zoning Appeals an No reports were given. VII. Other Business A. e (Section 4.20 of the City Code) Grimes told the Planning C the City Council for their that this draft Sign Code was referred to them by ,I::) it is not part of the Zoning Code. Shaffer asked why th designed. He added Mark Kuhnly, Chi f does refer to states that monument signs have to be architecturally are several other professional people who design signs. and Inspection Services stated that "architecturally designed" 'onal sign designers. political signs aren't covered in the Sign Code. Kuhnly stated that inars where they suggest not putting any language about political Shaffer referred to page four, Subdivision 4(C) and asked if prohibiting signs on rooftops is just referring to billboards. He also questioned the same subdivision which states that tops of signs shall not extend above the roof, or parapet wall level, whichever is higher. He stated that in his experience signs could sometimes .Iook better if they do extend above the roof or parapet. McAleese asked if any variances to the Sign Code would be allowed. Olson explained that is why staff purposely left the Sign Code out of the Zoning Code so that signs won't be open to any variances. . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 11 Shaffer asked why signs and murals are not allowed directly on buildings. Olson stated one reason they are not allowed is because of maintenance. Grimes stated that it is an aesthetics issue and that it is also hard to define what kinds of signs or murals would be okay. McAleese stated that the issue of murals needs greater discussion. Shaffer stated that he thinks some things in this new Sign Code are too strict and too limiting. Grimes asked what the hardship would be for granting a' ariance and stated staff tries to make the Code specific so the City can ans no to proposals. Rasmussen added that she thinks signs should sf low the square footage requirements. Groger asked if billboards were addressed in this versi stated that buildings could have a billboard on their prop business in the building. ../ Code. Kuhnly must relate to the McAleese referred to Subdivision 5(2) and st read "real estate". e words "real estates" should Shaffer referred to Subdivision 8 H(1) to be placed to allow a space betw He stated that the way this Cod would like it to. Groger stated t it could get into setback iss hy signs applied to a building have nd 0 the sign and the edge of a building. n fesn't allow for any leeway and that he ign were to be placed off the edge of a building Groger referred to Subdi interior and exterior issues regarding r i he thought about Shaffer add window. I) and asked if window signs should be clarified as hnly stated that the City Council raised the same size of window signs. Rasmussen asked Kuhnly what igns. Kuhnly stated that it becomes an enforcement issue. s that window signs should occupy no more than 25% of a i cussion of Minnesota APA Conference: September 11 - 13, 2002 Olson re ' the Planning Commission that if they wanted to go to the Minnesota APA conference their registration had to be turned in by August 14, 2002 to receive an early bird discount. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. ~ j . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Hey To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Continued Informal Public Hearing for Zoning Code Amendment- Telecommunication Ordinance Date: August 22,2002 Purpose At the August 12th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a draft telecommunications ordinance. The following are the issues to resolve before a recommendation can be made to the City Council: 1. Delete Radio and Television zoning district. This includes approving a rezoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment for the property at 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North. 2. Define "switch station" and create regulations for their use. 3. Approve new language to the Telecommunication draft relating to antenna towers on or adjacent to residential property. Proposed Revisions to the Draft Ordinance Based on the discussions at the August 12th meeting, the following are the proposed revisions to the draft ordinance: I. Proposed revisions from Tony Dorland, representing Verizon Wireless at 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North. City staff are in agreement with these changes and have incorporated them into the draft ordinances. . Delete the word "switch stations" from the draft Telecommunications Ordinance's definition of Telecommunication facility (Section 11.71, Subd. 2 (D). . Delete words "defined as a public utility" from Essential Services definition (Section 11.03, Subd. 36). . Undelete words "electronic signals" from Essential Services definition (Section 11.03, Subd. 36). . . . II. . Delete words "and related equipment" from the definition of Essential Services, Class III (Section 11.03, Subd. 36). . Add words "and class III except for peaking stations.and substations" in Section 11.30, Subd. 3 HH (Permitted uses in the Commercial zoning district). Currently, switch stations are a Permitted Use in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts. Changes to requirements for Essential Service in various zoning districts: Upon further review of citations in the Zoning Code relating to essential services, the following additional changes are proposed: . City Code Section 11.30, Subdivision 9. Height Restrictions. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures not exceeding 120 feet in height, and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed a height of three (3) stories in the Commercial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. The City Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit for a taller building. . City Code Section 11.30, Subdi':ision 10. Accessory Uses. The following uses are permitted 3ccessory uses in the Commercbl Zoning District: A. Essenti31 Services Class II when constructed on top of a principal building and not exceeding 120 feet in height as measured from ground levol. . City Code Section 11.35, Subdivision 3 (I) Essential Services ~ Class I and Class III with tho excoption that towers and related buildings may be constructed no closer to the Residential, R 2 Residential, Multiple [)lIelling or Institutional Zoning District th:::m the height of the to'Ner. . City Code Section 11.35, Subd. 9 Subdivision 9. Building Height. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures not exceeding 120 feet in height, and lighting fixtUres, shall be erected to exceed a height of forty~five (45) feet in the Light Industrial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. . City Code Section 11.36, Subd. 5. Building Height. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communioation structures not exceeding 120 feet in height and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed a height of forty~five (45) feet in the Industrial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. 2 . . . . City Code Section 11.45, Subd. Subdi~,ision 10. AGcessory Uses. The following accessory usos arc permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: l\. Essential Services Class II when constructed on top of a principal building and not exceeding 120 feet in height as measured from the ground level. III. Planning Commission members asked that changes be made to the draft Telecommunications ordinance in Subd. 4 (C) to reflect the desire to have setback requirements be exceeded when towers are adjacent to residential areas and for monopoles to be avoided whenever possible on properties zoned Multiple Dwelling. Below are the recommended language changes. These have been incorporated into the draft ordinance. . Sites with the least impact on residential areas.. Where feasible and practical. towers shall exceed the setback requirements when located adiacent to a property zoned Residential. Two Family Residential (R-2) and Multiple Dwellina. Also. where feasible and practical. antennas on properties zoned Multiple Dwellina shall be located on buildina rooftops rather than have a monopole desian. Recommended Action Staff requests that a Draft Telecommunication ordinance be forwarded onto the City Council for their approval. Attachments: . Letter from Tony Dorland dated August 13, 2002 . Draft Telecommunication Ordinance, including amendments to Essential Services 3 . . . MO S S & BARNETT A Professional Association ANTHONY A. DORLAND 612.347.0258 DorlandA@moss-bamett.com 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 Telephone 612.347.0300 Facsimile 612.339.6686 www.moss-barnett.com August 13,2002 VIA UPS OVERNIGHT AND FACSIMILE Department of Planning and Development Attn: Mr. Dan Olson City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Proposed Rezoning of 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue N. Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for allowing me to express Verizon Wireless's comments last night. Please. include this letter in your packet to the Planning Commission. Verizon Wireless is not opposed to the proposed rezoning of its property from. Radio/TV to Commercial as long as its switch station is allowed in this district. As you noted, Verizon Wireless constructed the switch station in 1984 after the property was rezoned to Radio/TV. Under the proposed changes to the City's code, Verizon Wireless's switch station would be prohibited in the Commercial district. As was discussed last night, adding "switch stations" to the definition of ''telecommunication facility" does not solve the problem. In order to correct this problem, we suggest the following language (you have already proposed most of these): . Section 11.03, Subd. 36 is amended to read as follows: 36. "Essential Services" - Structures or facilities owned by a government entity, a nonprofit organization, a corporation, or any other entity defined as a publie utility; and used in connection with the collection, delivery, generation, production, storage, or transmission of electricity, electronic signals, gas, oil, sewage, or water. Also, antermas and supporting strucmres. for the transmission of eeUular telehpoa6, radio, or television signals to the general publie. 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. 527000/1 . . . MO S S & BARNETT A Professional Association Mr. Dan Olson August 13,2002 Page 2 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 Telephone 612.347.0300 Facsimile 612.339.6686 www.moss-bamett.com Class II - Public utility facilities completely enclosed within buildings not to exceed 12 feet in height or 600 square feet in gross floor area.L- ; or cellular telephone, radio, or television signal transm:issio:a to'.vers not to e-xceed 120 f-eet in height as meas:ared from the groood ltwel to the highest point of the structures (including antenna), and including necessary eqaipment completely enclosed '.vithin buildings not to exceed 12 feet m height or 600 square feet in gross floor area. Class III - Peaking stations; substations; switching stations; cellular telepbo:ae, radio, or television sigaal transmission tOV/efS not to exceed 300 feet in height, and related equipment; and associated office or technical facilities for any of the preceding. . Section 11.30, Commercial Zoning District, Subd. 3 (Illi.) is amended to read as follows: HR. Essential Services - Class I and Class III excent for oeakin!! stations and substations. These changes specifically provide for Verizon Wireless's existing switch station (which looks like an office building) and address the Planning Commission's concern regarding having electrical substations in the Commercial district. These changes also negate the need to add "switch stations" to the Telecommunication Ordinance. Please send me the final draft of the proposed changes and notice of the next Planning Commission meeting. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Association Ar~? Anthony A. Dorland AAD/ltj 527000/1 2 . . . ORDINANCE ,2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY CODE BY adding Section 11.71 Telecommunication Towers and Antennas and amending Chapter 11 pertaining to essential services relating to telecommunication towers and antennas. Section 1. City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Definitions, Essential Services" is amended in Section 11.03, Subd. 36 to read as follows. 36. "Essential Services" - Structures or facilities owned by a government entity, a nonprofit organization, a corporation, or any other entity defined as a public utility; and used in connection with the collection, delivery, generation, production, storage, or transmission of electricity, electronic signals, gas, oil, sewage, or water. Also, antennas and supporting structures for 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. 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 noUo exceed 120 feet in height as measured from the ground level to the highest point of the structures (including antenna), and including necessary equipmont completely enclosed within buildings not to exceed .12 foet in height or 600 square feet in gross floor area. Class III - Peaking stations; substations; switching stations; cellular telephone, radio, or television signal transmission to'.~:ers not to exceed 300 feet in height, and related equipment; and associated office or technical facilities for any of the preceding. Section 2. City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.30, Subd. 9 to read as follows. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communic::ltion structures not exceeding 120 feet in height, and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed a height of three (3) stories in the Commercial Zoning 1 . . . District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. The City Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit for a taller building. Section 3. City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.30, Subd. 10 by deleting in its entirety. The following uses are permitted accessory uses in theCommercbl Zoning District: Essential Services - Class II when constructed on top of a principal building and not exceeding 120 feet in height as measured from ground level. Section 4. City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning) " is amended in Section 11.35, Subd. 3 (I) to read as follows. Class I and Class III with the exception th3t towers 3nd related buildings may be constructed no closer to the Residential, R 2 Residential, Multiple D'Nelling or Institutional Zoning District than the height of the to':.'er. Section 5. City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning) " is amended in Section 11.35, Subd. 9 to read as follows. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures not exceeding 120 feet in height, and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet in the Light Industrial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. Section 6. City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning) " is amended in Section 11.36, Subd. 5 to read as follows. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essentbl service communication structures not exceeding 120 feet in height and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet in the Industrial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. Section 7. City Code, Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.45, Subd.10 by deleting in its entirety. The following accessol)' uses arc permitted in the Business and Professional Offioe District: 2 . A. Essential Servicos Class II when constructed on top of a principal building and not exceeding 120 feet in height 3S measured from the ground level. Section 8. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations ("Zoning") is 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 of telecommunications 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 demonstration 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 55,1,00 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, 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, 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 . 3 . . . antenna support structure but not including a satellite earth station antenna, (satellite dish) two meters or less in diameter. 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. 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: A. 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. B. Less restrictive (heavier) zoning district shall be given preference over more restrictive zoning districts. C. Sites with the least impact on residential areas. Where feasible and practical, towers shall exceed the setback requirements when located adjacent to a property zoned Residential, Two Family Residential (R-2) and Multiple Dwelling. Also, where feasible and practical, antennas on properties zoned Multiple Dwelling shall be located on building rooftops rather than have a monopole design. D. In all cases, except for non-conforming existing towers, the location must meet the zoning requirements. E. Amateur radio towers in the Residential Zoning District and Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts are not required to co-locate. 4 . 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. 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. 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. B. Multiple Dwelling District 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 . 5 . 100 days and the purpose is to test a site which might qualify for a permanent tower am the height is not greater than 66 feet. C. Institutional Zoning District. Including 1-1, 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. 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 10 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 thl height is not greater than 100 feet. D. 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 ofthis 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 requirementl of this Section and Section 11.80 of the Code. If located on the ground, the height mus1 not exceed 30 feet. 5. Temporary Towers. Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater thaI . 6 . . . 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. E. 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 asa 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. 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. F. 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. 5. Temporary Towers. Temporary mobile towers may be permitted through an administrative permit provided the term is not greater than 7 . 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. G. 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 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. 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 200 feet. 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 applicant, the telecommunications tower owner, the landowner, 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 use, 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 8 . existing trees and landscaping which can screen the telecommunication tower shall be preserved. C. Interference. The placement, design, use and operation of the telecommunications facilities shall comply with the Telecommunications Actof 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. D. Setbacks. 1. No telec mmunication tower shall be located in the required minimum front, side, or rear yard buil ing setback of any parcel. 2. Exceptio s. Use of existing light poles, high voltage poles or towers, and telecommunicati ns towers are exempt from the setback requirements provided that such pole or tele mmunication tower is not increased in height. 3. Satellite ish. In the Institutional, Business and Industrial zones, no satellite dish greater than 0 meters shall be located in the minimum required front or side-yard setbacks. E. Ground Structu es. If the ground structure is a building, the design shall be compatible with the princip I building. If no principal building is on the site, the building must be compatible with ear-by buildings. Structures which are . not buildings must be designed to be compati Ie with the area. F. Structural. Tel communications towers shall be approved by a licensed and qualified professi nal structural engineer to conform to the lateral and other structure standards of the m st current uniform building code and to be structurally sound for conditions reasonably li ely 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 oth r federal, state and other regulatory agencies must be met. G. Guy Wires. G y wires are prohibited for new telecommunications towers. . H. Security. Rea onable security measures shall be provided. If fencing is used, it must be decor tive and landscaping shall be used to soften its impact. I. Lighting. No tel communications towers or antennas shall be artificially illuminated unless required by la or the Federal Aviation Administration. This provision does not prevent general exter or lighting of a building or steeple to meet aesthetic or functional objectives provided su h lighting otherwise meets the provisions of the code. J. Signs. No sign shall be located on a telecommunications tower or antenna except to provide necessa information as required to meet federal, state or local laws. 9 . K. Landscaping nd Screening. All telecommunication towers and related building facilities shall be landscaped and screened with natural vegetation to lessen the visual impact. The atural vegetation on the site shall be documented on the site plans. Suitable exis ing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible based on an analysis of the ite. New landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan, which will be reviewed as p rt of the conditional use permit application. O. Antenna Loc tions and Mounting. Locating and mounting antennas on buildings and structures are go erned by the following: 1. If mou ted at the top of a telecommunication tower so that any portion of the antenna extends a ove the top of the tower, such extension is . included in determining the height of the tow r. 2. If mou ted on a public water tower, light pole, high voltage utility pole, steeple or similar structu e, preference shall be given to placing the antennas on the side or on the support porti n of the structure instead of on top of the facility. 3. If mou ted 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 location on top of the building. However any antenna mounted on the side of a buildi g shall not extend above the roofline. (Satellite dishes may be more appropriately ocated on the roof and screened from view.) 4. If mou ted 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 th n 10 feet from all outside edges/perimeter of the building. 5. Anten as located on the side or top of a building or structure shall be designed, colored, and m intained to blend in with the color and architecture of the building or structure. Subdivision 7. Additi nal Standards for Public Property. . 10 . . . 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: A. The height is not increased. B. The location of the tower and the proposed change is not adverse to the use and enjoyment of the adjacent property. C. The proposed change and plan include meeting design standards of the ordinance to the extent reasonably possible. D. 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. Telecommunication towers and antennas 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. 11 . . . 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: 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. Section 9. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Includina Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled" 12 . Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety. by reference. as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect after its passage and publication. This ordinance is adopted by the City Council this _th day of _' 2002. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Donald G. Taylor, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post on ,2002 . . 13 ~ ~'" . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Hey To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Possible Zoning Code changes Date: August 21,2002 Background Attached please find a list of proposed Zoning Code changes that the staff would like to discuss with the Planning Commission. This list was generated based on our experience in practically applying the Zoning Code to real-life situations. The Code is also outdated in some respects and does not reflect current land use needs. Also attached for your review are.the following: 1. A study done by staff of variance requests from 1999 - 2001. This study shows what types of variances were commonly requested and approved, and might be helpful in helping to determine if some setback requirements should be changed. 2. A letter from Golden Valley resident David Peters regarding a request to change setback requirements for accessory structures in the Residential zoning district. Planning Commission Action This agenda item is for your discussion. If the Planning Commission decides that these Code changes should be made, staff will begin working on preparing draft ordinances for the Commission to review. . . POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO GOLDEN VALLEY ZONING CODE Miscellaneous: . Make revisions to daytime activity centers, day care, child care requirements. Daytime activity centers are not defined in the Zoning Code, and the differences between day care and child care are not readily apparent. In City Code Section 11.21, Subd. 3 (H), this State Statute cited was repealed by Legislature in 1987. . Add Adult Use Section to the Zoning Code. These uses are Permitted in the Commercial zoning district. Also, no clear regulations on this land use. . Delete language that should have been previously deleted, but was not (for example, references to Railroad and Terminal Warehouse zoning districts) Section 11.03 Definitions. . Expand this definition section to include more terms. Section 11.12 Principal structure on one lot. . Refer to this requirement in each zoning district chapter. . Section 11.20 Open Development zoning district . Delete this section and all references throughout Zoning Code. Section 11.21 Residential zoning district . . Rename "Single Family Zoning District - R-1" . Establish various requirements for accessory structures: 1. 1,000 square foot maximum for accessory structures (what Inspections Department requires). 2. Require permit from the Planning Department for accessory buildings? 3. Include swimming pools in accessory structures definition? 4. Look at the definition of structure and building (does this include walls, for example ?). Swimming pools are subject to setbacks, but stone walls are not. Discuss what types of structures should be subject to setback requirements. 5. Delete requirement that detached structure has to be completely behind the principal structure? . Establish lot coverage requirements? . For comer lots, front and side clearly defined. Have lesser setback for one side? Refer to comer visibility requirements. . Subd. 7 (A) - reduce front yard setback in certain situations (i.e. front porches) . Subd. 7 (C) - reduce side yard setback in certain situations (i.e., second stall garage) . Subd. 14 Mark Grimes would like to make some changes to the Home Occupations regulations. . . Add requirements on temporary outdoor storage (PODS, dumpsters, etc.)? . Establish fence requirements and place these requirements in Zoning Code? . Air conditioning units not allowed in front yard of home (what Inspections Department requires). . Establish driveway setbacks and require that driveways be hard surface? Section 11.22 Two-Family zoning district . Accessory building requirements ? Section 11.25 Multiple Dwelling zoning district . Delete M-3 and M-4 subdistricts (we have no properties zoned that way)? If an applicant would like to build a higher structure, put in a CUP Permit forM-2 ? . Accessory building requirements ? Sections 11.30, 11.35, 11.36, 11.45, and 11.46 Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial, Business and ProCessional offices, and Institutional zoning districts . . More thorough listings of Permitted and Conditional Uses? . Review # of parking space requirements for legitimacy. . Accessory building requirements ? . Do we have requirements for trash enclosures ? . Define mini-storage facilities? . Require screening of mechanical equipment. . Lighting standards for parking lots ? . Delete Section 11.45, Subd. 8 (B) (7) ? ("compatible uses" allowed as CUP) . Delete Section 11.46, Subd. 4 (H) ? ("compatible uses" allowed as CUP) . Establish landscape standards ? . Regulate outside paging systems and loudspeakers ? . Are medical offices and medical clinics considered offices? . In Institutional zoning district, delete concept of sub-districts. Instead, have schools and churches as a Permitted Use and every other use is a Conditional Use? . Along 1-394, create a new zoning district called 1-394 Business and Light Industrial zoning district. This would include light industrial, restaurants, hotels, and office uses. . Review properties that are zoned Industrial- would they be appropriately located in a Commercial or Light Industrial (we don't have a lot of "heavy" industrial properties) ? Then expand uses in Light Industrial ? Section 11.40 Radio and Television Zoning District . Rezone 3 properties in this district and then delete this section and all references throughout the Zoning Code? . . Section 1l.55 Planned Unit Development . Implement changes as have been discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. . Establish sign design standards as part of the PUD process? Section 1l.60 Flood Plain Management . Up to date with State Statutes? Have Engineering Department review. Section 1l.65 Shoreland Management . Up to date with State Statutes? Have Engineering Department review. Section 11.70 Off-street parking and loading regulations . Loading requirements not used - should be make more practical ? . Refer to these requirement in each zoning district chapter. . Requirements for aisle width, islands, landscaping, etc. ? Section 11.90 Administration . . Subd. 4 - Change to allow "Administrative Variance" in hold-harmless situations? . . . . ,~ Aug-OO 4501 Chatelain Terrace Accessory Shed 2.5 feet from existing structure Shed Addition Denied -.-- Nov-OO 2936 Quail Ave. N. Accessory .5 feet oft req. 5 feet to 4.5 feet Garage Addition Same, Shed to be moved Apr-OO 1230 Orkla Drive Accessory Allow shed next to house in present location Existing Shed Same, Driveway must be moved May-99 7156 Harold Ave. Accessory 3.5 feet oft req. 5 feet to 1.5 feet Existing Shed Same May-99 4224 Golden Valley Rd. Accessory Allow garage in front of house Garage Addition Same May-99 2240 Penns Ave.N. Accessory Allow less than 10ft. between house & pool Balcony Addition Same Jul-99 5005 Hampton Road Accessory .22 feet oft req. 5 feet to 4.78 feet Existing Shed Same Jul-99 1900 Rhode Island N Accessory .1 feet oft req. 5 feet to 4.9 feet Existing Shed .2 ft. oft 5 ft. to 4.8 ft Sep-99 1917 Xerxes Avenue N Accessory o feet from the side property line Existing Shed Tabled Oct-99 510 Ellis Lane Accessory Garage in front 7.5 ft from front prop. line. 2-Stall Garage Same May-OO 425 Sunnyridge Lane Accessory 1 foot oft req. 5 feet to 4 feet Existing Garage Same May-OO 425 Sunnyridge Lane Accessory 25 feet oft req. 35 feet to 10 feet Existing Garage Added to Agenda Jun-OO 2317 Byrd Ave. N. Accessory 3.6 feet oft req. 5 feet to 104 feet Existing Shed Same Oct-OO 5940 St. Croix Ave. Accessory A feet oft req. 5 feet to 4.6 feet Existing Playhouse Same Oct-OO 5940 St. Croix Ave. Accessory 4.2 feet oft req. 5 feet to .10 feet Existing Shed Same Nov-OO 433 Ensign Ave. N. Accessory 1 foot oft req. 5 feet to 4 feet Shed Addition Same Nov-OO 433 Ensign Ave. N. Accessory 1 foot oft req. 5 feet to 4 feet Existing Garage Same Nov-OO 2936 Quail Ave. N. Accessory .6 feet oft req. 5 feet to 404 feet Garage Addition Same Jul-OO 401 Sunnyridge Lane Accessory 34.92 feet oft req. 35 feet to .08 Existing Garage Same Jul-OO 401 Sunnyridge Lane Accessory 3.9 feet oft req. 5 feet to 1.1 feet Existing Garage Same Jul-OO 510-512 Ellis Lane Accessory Garage in front 7.5 ft from front prop. line 2-Stall Garage Same, wI 4/12 roof pitch +2 feet in depth May-OO 312 Parkview Terrace Cornices 6 additional inches of the allowed 30 inches 2nd Story Addition Tabled Jun-OO 5735 Westbrook Rd. Cornices Rear eaves to protrude into rear setback Deck Addition Same Dec-OO 801 Parkview Terrace Front 12 feet oft req. 35 feet to 23 feet Porch Addition 13 ft. oft 35 ft. to 22 ft. Aug-OO 3317 Kyle Ave. N. Front 4.8 feet oft req. 35 feet to 30.2 feet Existing House Same, shed to be moved ~ Aug-OO 5010 Dawnview Terrace Front 10.1 feet oft req. 35 feet to 24.9 feet Porch/Deck Add'n 9.1 ft. oft 35 ft. to 25.9 ft., shed to be moved Jun-OO 5735 Westbrook Rd. Front 1.4 feet oft req.35 feet to 33.6 feet Replace Deck Same, deck to be built in same place as old May-OO 425 Sunnyridge Lane Front 35 feet oft req. 35 feet to 0 feet 3-Season Addition Same with condition that it has to be a deck. Apr-OO 1228 Quebec Ave. N. Front 8.9 feet oft req. 35 feet to 26.1 feet 3-Car Garage Add'n Same Jan-OO 2531 Zenith Ave. N. Front 28.8 feet oft req. 35 feet to 6.2 feet Deck 24.8 ft oft 35 ft. to 10.2 ft. Nov-99 2531 Zenith Ave. N. Front 5.6 feet oft req. 35 feet to 29.4 feet Exist. House/2nd StorY Same Oct-91 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Front 28.40 feet oft req. 35 feet to 6.6 feet Bldg. Addition 23.3 ft. oft 35 ft. to 11.7 ft. Jan-99 7410 Ridgeway Rd. Front 004 feet oft req. 35 to 34.6 feet Existing house Same . . . Mar-99 6020 Wayzata Blvd. Front 29 feet off req. 35 feetto 6 feet Landscaping 31 ft. off 35 ft. to 4 ft. ------ Jan-99 4335 Tyrol Crest Front 0.26 feet off req. 35 feet to 34.74 feet Existing house Same Apr-99 6601 Plymouth Ave. Front 8.5 feet off req. 35 feet to 26.5 feet Existing home Same Apr-99 5051 Thotland Road Front .4 feet off req. 35 feet to 34.6 feet Existing home Same May-99 7156 Harold Ave. Front 17.75 feet off req. 35 feet to 17.25 feet Garage & Addition Tabled Jun-99 7156 Harold Avenue Front 5 feet off req. 35 feet to 30 feet Garage Addition Tabled for 3 months Jun-99 4500 Chatelain Terrace Front 12 feet off req. 35 feet to 23 feet Deck Addition Same, deck to be no more than 10" off ground Jun-99 4500 Chatelain Terrace Front 8.2 feet off req. 35 feet to 26.8 feet Existing Home Same Jun-99 617 Westwood Drive S. Front 5 feet off req. 35 feet to 30 feet Garage Addition Same Jun-99 1949 Xerxes Ave. N. Front .5 feet off req. 22 feet to 21.5 feet Garage Addition Same Jul-99 2445 Winfield Avenue Front 1 foot off req. 35 feet to 34 feet Existing Home Same Jul-99 5005 Hampton Road Front 1.45 feet off req.35 feet to 33.55 feet Existing Home Same Jul-99 2535 Vale Crest Road Front 6 feet off req. 35 feet to 29 feet Porch Addition Same, porch must remain an open structure Jul-99 1301 Pennsylvania N Front 5.23 feet off req. 35 feet to 29.77 feet Porch Addition Same, porch must remain an open structure Jul-99 1900 Rhode Island N Front 2.5 feet off req. 35 feet to 32.5 feet Porch Addition Same, porch must remain an open structure Aug-99 2233 Ensign Avenue N Front 1 foot off req. 35 feet to 34 feet Existing Home Same Sep-99 1917 Xerxes Avenue N Front 3.1 feet off req. 35 feet to 31.9 feet Existing Home Tabled Oct-99 3218 Lee Avenue N Front 2.3 feet off req. 35 feet to 32.7 feet Existing Home Same Oct-91 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Front 23.30 feet off req. 35 feet to 11.70 feet Existing Bldg. Withdrawn Oct-99 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Front 23.30 feet off req. 35 feet to 11.7 feet Parking Lot Same Oct-99 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Front 25 feet off req. 35 feet to 10 feet Trash Enclosure Not in motion? Oct-99 145 Jersey Ave. N. Front 24 feet off req. 35 feet to 11 feet Existing parking lot Same Nov-99 2531 Zenith Ave. N. Front 24.8 feet off req. 35 feet to 10.2 feet Exist. house/deck Same Dec-99 3211 Orchard Ave. N. Front .2 feet off req. 35 feet to 34.8 feet Addition & Deck Same Jan-OO 2531 Zenith Ave. N. Front 11 feet off req. 35 feet to 24 feet Deck/Overhang Same Apr-OO 1228 Quebec Ave. N. Front 1.1 feet off req. 35 feet to 33.9 feet Existing House Same Apr-OO 1228 Quebec Ave. N. Front 1.1 feet off req. 35 feet to 33.9 feet Room Addition Same Apr-OO 1228 Quebec Ave. N. Front 5.1 feet off req. 35 feet to 29.9 feet Deck Addition Same Apr-OO 1228 Quebec Ave. N. Front 10.9 feet off req. 35 feet to 24.10 feet Existing House Same Apr-OO 1408 Sumter Ave. N. Front 3.62 feet off req. 35 feet to 31.38 feet New Home Denied May-OO 529 Meadow Lane Front 9.4 feet off req. 35 feet to 25.6 feet 2nd Stall on Garaae Same May-OO 2605 Perry Ave. N. Front 7.6 feet of req. 35 feet to 27.4 feet Entry/Kitchen Add'n Denied . . . Jun-OO 4901 Glenwood Ave. Front 2.65 feet off req. 35 feet to 32.35 feet Garage Addition _ _um Same Jun-OO 4801 Dawnview Terrace Front 5 feet off req. 35 feet to 30 feet Existing House Same Jun-OO 2317 Byrd Ave. N. Front 7.6 feet off req. 36 feet to 27.4 feet Existing House Same Jun-OO 4901 Glenwood Ave. Front 2.65 feet off req. 35 feet to 32.35 feet Garage Addition Same Jun-OO 1109 North Tyrol Tr. Front 2 feet off req. 35 feet to 33 feet Existing House Same Jun-OO 900 Mendelssohn Ave. Front 20 feet off req. 35 feet to 15 feet Front Turnaround Same Jul-OO 1860 Hampshire Lane Front 2 feet off req. 35 feet to 33 feet Existing House Same Jul-OO 1860 Hampshire Lane Front 2 feet off req. 35 feet to 33 feet Garage Addition Same Jul-OO 401 Sunnyridge Lane Front 14.9 feet off req. 35 feet to 20.1 feet Existing House Same Aug.-OO 2650 Lee Ave. N. Front 16.10 feet off req. 35 feet to 18.9 Existing House Same Aug-OO 2615 Brookridge Ave. Front 3 feet off req. 35 feet to 32 feet Existing House Same Aug-OO 2615 Brookridge Ave. Front 2 feet off req. 35 feet to 33feet Existing House Same Aug-OO 1917 Xerxes Ave. N. Front 3.1 feet off req. 35 feet to 31.9 feet Existing House Same Oct-OO 6860 Harold Ave. Front .4 feet off req. 35 feet to 34.6 feet Existing House Same Oct-OO 4511 Strawberry Lane Front 32 feet off req. 35 feet to 3 feet Entry Wall & Gate Same Oct-OO 4511 Strawberry Lane Front 1 foot off req. 35 feet to 34 feet Entry Wall & Gate Same Oct-91 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Landscape 31.5 feet off req. 35 feet to 3.5 feet Landscaping Withdrawn Oct-91 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Landscape 8.62 off req. 10 feet to 1.38 feet Landscaping Same Jul-OO 4725 Olson Mem. Hwy. Parking 3 feet off req. 20-ft length to 17 feet for 9 spaces Building addition Same Nov-OO 8325-8459 10th Ave. N. Parking Reduce parking from req. 220 spaces to 163 spaces Existing Building Same Aug-OO 710 Mendel. Ave. N. Parking 3 loading berths off req. 3 to allow 0 berths Building Addition Same, with trash enclosure screening Jul-OO 4725 Olson Mem. Hwy. Parking 4 spaces off req. 49 t036 & 9 proof of parking spaces Building addition Same, with trash enclosure screening Oct-99 145 Jersey Ave. N. Parking Forego req.curb/gutter until parking area is done Curb & Gutter Must receive right-of-way permit Oct-99 145 Jersey Ave. N. Parking Less parking spaces Parking Lot Same Mar-OO 1885-1985 Douglas Dr. Parking 11 spaces off req. 374 to 363 spaces Parking Denied May-99 4725 Olson Mem. Hwy. Parking 4 less than the req. 40 to allow 36 spaces More Parking Same Jun-OO 9050 Golden Valley Rd. Parking 38 spaces off req. 92 - total of 54 spaces Build Restaurant Same Jul-OO 2910 Scott Ave. N. Rear 12.71 feet off req. 17.71 to 50 feet Deck Addition Same, Deck to remain unenclosed Mar-99 1520 Kaltem Lane Rear 8.1 feet 9ff req. 23.30 feet to 15.1 feet New addition Same Mar-99 1520 Kaltern Lane Rear 6.47 feet off req. 20.8 feet to 14.33 feet New addition Same May-99 4224 Golden Valley Rd. Rear 3.3 feet offreq. 25 feet to 21.7 feet Garage Addition Same May-99 4224 Golden Valley Rd. Rear 10 feet off req. 25 feet to 15 feet 2nd -storv balconv Withdrew Jun-99 1949 Xerxes Ave. N. Rear 16 feet off req. 29 feet to 13 feet New Garage Same . . . Jun-OO 5735 Westbrook Rd Rear 18.5 feet of req. 34 feet to 15.5 feet Existing House Same Aug-99 123 Ottawa Avenue N Rear 27.6 feet off req. 50 feet to 22.3 feet New Addition Same Aug-99 123 Ottawa Avenue N Rear 19.75 feet off req. 50 feet to 30.3 feet New Addition Same Jun-OO 5735 Westbrook Rd Rear 22 feet of req. 34 feet to 12 feet Deck Addition Same Jun-OO 900 Mendelssohn Ave. Rear 10 feet off req. 10 feet to 0 feet Landscaping Same Jul-OO 1711 Rhode Island N Rear 8.48 feet off req. 26.34 to 17.86 feet Deck Addition Tabled Aug-OO 1917 Xerxes Ave. N Rear 2 feet off req. 26 feet 24 feet Deck Addition Same Oct-OO 5940 S1. Croix Ave Rear 19.6 feet off req. 47.9 feet to 28.3 feet Deck Addition Same Oct-OO 5940 S1. Croix Av. Rear 8.9 feet off req. 47.9 feet to 39 feet Existing Deck Same Oct-OO 4511 Strawberry Lane Rear 2.4 feet off req. 23.2 feet to 20.8 feet Deck Addition Same Oct-99 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Restricte To allow outdoor storage of trash enclosure N/A Same Feb-99 2201 Lee Ave. N. Shoreland 18.8 feet off req. 50 to 31.2 feet to OHW Existing deck Same Feb-99 2201 Lee Ave. N. Shoreland 39.4 feet off req. 50 feet to 10.6 feet to OHW Existing gazebo Denied Feb-99 2201 Lee Ave. N. Shoreland 16 feet off req. 50 feet to 34 feet to OHW New addition Same Feb-99 2201 Lee Ave. N. Shoreland 8.7 feet off req. 50 feet to 41.3 feet to OHW New addition Same Apr-99 6601 Plymouth Ave. Shoreland 10 feet off req. 50 feet to 40 feet Existing home Same Jul-OO 4725 Olson Mem. Hwy. Side 10 feet off req. 10 feet to 0 feet Lack of Green space Same Nov-OO 8325-8459 10th Ave. N. Side 4 ft. off req. 10 ft. to 6 ft of landscape buffer zone Existing Building Same Sep-OO 1030 N. Tyrol Trail Side .4 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.6 feet Existing House .6 ft off 15 ft to 14.6 ft Jul-OO 1860 Hampshire Lane Side 9 feet off req. 15 feet to 5.5 feet Garage Addition 6.5 ft. off 15 ft. to 8.5ft Jun-OO 314 Parkview Terrace Side .6 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.4 feet Room & 2nd Storv Add Same Jun-OO 314 Parkview Terrace Side 1.6 feet off req. 15 feet to 13.3 feet Room & 2nd Storv Add Same Jun-OO 314 Parkview Terrace Side 2.1 feet off req. 15 feet to 12.9 feet Room & 2nd Storv Add Same Jun-OO 1300 Angelo Drive Side .5 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.5 feet Garage and Room Add Same Apr-OO 1228 Quebec Ave. N. Side .85 feet off req. 13.05 feet to 12.20 feet Room Addition Same, garage must be removed Apr-OO 1230 Orkla Drive Side 5.25 feet off req. 11.25 to 6 feet Add above Garage Same Jan-99 7410 Ridgeway Rd. Side 0.13 feet off req. 15 to 14.871eet Existing home Same Jan-99 7410 Ridgeway Rd. Side 0.2 feet off req. 15 to 14.8 feet Existing home Same Jan-99 7410 Ridgeway Rd. Side 0.2 feet off req. 15 t014.8 feet New deck Same Jan-99 4335 Tyrol Crest Side 12 feet off req. 15 to 3 feet New carport Denied Mar-99 4022 Wayzata Blvd. Side 9.75 feet off req. 15 feet to 5.25 feet New garage Same Mar-99 6020 Wayzata Blvd. Side 8 feet off req. 10 feet to 2 feet Landscaping Same . . . Jun-99 617 Westwood Drive S. Side 7.6 feet off req. 15 feet to 7.4 feet New Garage Same Apr-99 6601 Plymouth Ave. Side 6.7 feet off req. 15 feet to 8.3 feet Existing home Same Apr-99 6601 Plymouth Ave. Side 5.35 feet off req. 15 feet to 9.65 feet New deck Same Apr-99 6601 Plymouth Ave. Side 3 feet off req. 15 feet to 12 feet Existing home Same Jul-99 4511 Strawberry Lane Side 10 feet off req. 15 feet to 5 feet New Garage Same Jul-99 5005 Hampton Road Side 10.2 feet off req. 15 feet to 4.8 feet Garage Addition 10 ft. off 15 ft. to 5 ft. Jul-99 1900 Rhode Island N Side 1.4 feet off req. 15 feet to 13.6 feet Existing Home Same Aug-99 7156 Harold Avenue Side 7.1 feet off req. 15 feet to 7.9 feet Garage Addition Same Aug-99 2501 Parkview Blvd. Side 2.2 feet off req. 11.7 feet to 9.5 feet Existing Home Same Aug-99 123 Ottawa Avenue N Side 23 feet off req. 25 feet to 2 feet Landscaping Same Sep-99 1917 Xerxes Avenue N Side .34 feet off req. 11.24 feet to 10.9 feet New Deck Tabled Sep-99 1917 Xerxes Avenue N Side .68 feet off req. 11.24 feet to 10.56 feet New Deck Tabled Oct-99 3218 Lee Avenue N Side .4 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.6 feet Existing Home Same Oct-91 9220 Olson Mem. Hwy. Side 18.62 feet off req. 20 feet to 1.38 feet Existing Bldg. Withdrawn Oct-99 5126 Minnaqua Drive Side 3.01 feet off req. 14.25 feet to 11.24 Screened-In Porch Same Oct-99 216 Winnetka Ave. S. Side 3 feet off req. 15 feet to 12 feet 2-Stall Garage 4 ft. off 15 ft. to 11 ft. Dec-99 1640 Kelly Drive Side 7 feet off req. 15 feet to 8 feet Addition Same Mar-OO 145 Meadow Lane Side 2.93 feet off req. 12.73 feet to 9.8 feet Existing House Same Mar-99 145 Meadow Lane Side 2.93 feet off req. 12.73 feet to 9.8 feet Addition & Deck Same Apr-OO 1228 Quebec Ave. N. Side .85 feet off req. 13.05 feet to 12.20 feet Existing House Same Apr-OO 401 Westwood Dr. S. Side 3 feet off req. 12.75 feet to 9.75 feet Garage Addition Same Apr-OO 401 Westwood Dr. S. Side 3 feet off req. 12.75 feet to 9.75 feet Room Addition Same Apr-OO 401 Westwood Dr. S. Side 3 feet off req. 12.75 feet to 9.75 feet 2nd StorY Addition Same May-OO 4840 Killamey Drive Side .04 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.96 feet Deck Addition Same . May-OO 4840 Killamey Drive Side .27 feet off req.15 feet to 14.73 feet Deck Addition Same May-OO 4211 Glencrest Road Side 7 feet off req. 15 feet to 8 feet Garage Addition 3 ft. off 15 ft. to 12 ft. May-OO 425 Sunnyridge Lane Side 4.1 feet off req. 8 feet to 3.9 feet Existing House Same May-OO 312 Parkview Terrace Side .6 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.4 feet 2nd StOry Addition Tabled May-OO 312 Parkview Terrace Side 1.8 feet off req. 15 feetto 13.2 feet 2nd StorY Addition Tabled May-OO 312 Parkview Terrace Side 1.6 feet off req. 15 feetto 13.4 feet Existing House Tabled May-OO 312 Parkview Terrace Side 3.1 feet off req. 15 feetto 11.9 feet 2nd StorY Cantilever Tabled May-OO 2605 Perry Ave. N. Side 12 feet of req. 15 feet to 3 feet Existing Deck Same . . . Jun-OO 900 Mendelssohn Ave. Side 10 feet off req. 10 feet to 0 feet Landscaping Same Jun-OO 1710 Sumter Ave. N. Side .3 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.7 feet Screen Porch Addn Same Jun-OO 2317 Byrd Ave. N. Side 4.4 feet off req. 11.4 feet to 7 feet Existing House Same Jun-OO 2317 Byrd Ave. N. Side 3.3 feet off req. 11.4 feet to 8.1 feet Existing House Same Jun-OO 1109 North Tyrol Tr. Side 4.11 feet of req. 15 feet to 10.89 feet Existing House Same Jul-OO 20 Hanley Road Side 3 feet off req. 15 feet to 12 feet Existing House Same Jul-OO 401 Sunnyridge Lane Side 2 feet off req. 8 feet to 6 feet Existing House Same Jul-OO 1508 Alpine Pass Side 10 feet off req. 15 feet to 5 feet Garage Addition Same Jul-OO 1711 Rhode Island N Side .2 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.8 feet Existing Chimney Tabled Aug-OO 2615 Brookridge Ave. Side 3.5 feet off req. 15 feet to 11.5 feet Existing Deck Same Aug-OO 4541 Westwood Lane Side 10.7 feet off req. 13.7 feet to 3 feet Porch Addition Same Aug-OO 1917 Xerxes Ave. N. Side .34 feet off req. 11.24 feetto 10.9 feet Existing House Same Oct-OO 4511 Strawberry Lane Side 14 feet off req. 15 feet to 1 foot Entry Wall & Gate Same Oct-OO 4511 Strawberry Lane Side 3 feet off req. 15 feet to 12 feet Deck Addition Same Oct-OO 4511 Strawberry Lane Side .8 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.2 feet Deck Addition Same Nov-OO 8325-8459 10th Ave. N. Side 13.8 feet off req. 35 feet to 21.2 feet Existing Building Same Jun-99 5125 Minnaqua Drive Side 3.65 feet off req. 14.25 feet to 10.6 feet Existing Home Same Jun-99 5126 Minnaqua Drive Side 7.78 feet off req. 14.25 feet to 6.47 feet Existing Home Same Oct-OO 6860 Harold Ave. Side .3 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.7 feet Existing House Same Aug-OO 1917 Xerxes Ave. N. Side .37 feet off req. 11.24 feet to 10.87 feet Deck Addition Denied Oct-OO 6860 Harold Ave. Side .1 feet off req. 15 feet to 14.9 feet Existing House Same Mar-99 6020 Wayzata Blvd. Side 10 feet off req. 10 feetto 0 feet Landscaping 8 ft off 10 ft. to 2 ft. Jul-OO 4725 Olson Mem. Hwy. Standards To allow construction of curb & gutter Building Addition Same Aug-OO 710 Mendelssohn Ave. Standards Forego curb/gutter until parking lot is redone Parking Lot Same Jun-OO 900 Mendelssohn Ave. Standards To add curb & gutter when site disturbed Exist. Parking Lot/site Same May-OO 4840 Killamey Drive Standards 9 feet off req. 75 feet to 66 feet Deck Addition Same, Hold Harmless Form Sep-OO 5790 Westbrook Rd. Standards 10 feet off req. 50 feet to 40 feet to OHWM Existing House Same, With a more complete survey Sep-OO 5790 Westbrook Rd. Standards 22 feet off req.50 feet to 28 feet to OHWM Deck Addition Same, Hold Harmless & meet w/ Envir. Coord. Aug-OO 710 Mendelssohn Ave. Yard Req. 10 feet off req. 10 feet to 0 feet of green Rear Landscaping Same, More landscaping, fix exist. Landscape Mar-OO 1885-1985 Douglas Dr. Yard Req. 40 feet off req. 75 feet to 35 feet Proposed Parking Denied Oct-99 145 Jersey Ave. N. Yard Req. 48.5 feet off req. 50 feet to 1.5 fee Existing Garage Same Oct-99 145 Jersey Ave. N. Yard Req. 5 feet off req. 25 feet to 20 feet Existing Driveway Same . . . 145 Jersey Ave. N. 145 Jersey Ave. N. 4725 Olson Mem. Hwy. 4725 Olson Mem. Hwy. Yard Req. Yard Req. Yard Req. Yard Req. 20 feet off req. 25 feet to 5 feet 10 feet off req. 35 feet to 25 feet 35 feet off req. 35 feet to 0 feet 24 feet off req. 35 feet to 11 feet Existing Play Area Existing parking lot Driveway Addition Building Addition Same Same Same Same . . U) - U) CD :J..... C"O CDO D::~ CD 0) uO) cO) CIS..... 'C CIS > . o It) o <") o N o "'='" o T"" ~~ &~ &'OIl .~~ .sl ~.6 2:l.....~ V& fO~ ~ ~ \S' Q ~I.S' .6~ ~ Va ~ ~ .6& ~~ 'OIl ~L ~& 0/ ~ 6J ~-1. '.....& C)' &0 , t-~ ,1~ o~ '>' ~~ l:Q ,~ o "OJ,.. . . . August 9, 2002 TO: Dan Olson Members of the Golden Valley Planning Commission FR: David Peters / 3005 Regent Avenue North RE. , Permits for storage sheds, extra garage My backyard neighbor at 3050 Scott Avenue North has been granted a permit to build a 22x24 double garage in his backyard for use as a woodworking shop. I'm satisfied he has complied with current regulations. My request is for you to consider those regulations. When another neighbor of mine requested a variance for adding onto his double garage, neighbors were notified and we were given the opportunity to register comments we had. Eventually, his addition was not allowed as originally planned and another solution was found. Yet, the structure to be built at 3050 Scott is as large and will have a greater impact on the neighborhood with no advance notice being provided for comment. This double garage will be closer to my house than his. What is now a pleasant viewof trees that I was hoping to enjoy in my retirement (and that I recently installed larger windows to enjoy) will now change to a huge building that I will have to lookat for the rest of my life. His love of woodworking will most surely turn into the screaming sound of planers and saws. As ordinances now apparently stand, such a building can be built without any prior knowledge of neighbors who will be directly affected. As long as you're five feet from the lot line, almost anything goes. It seems to be okay that you can build ugliness that destroys a neighbor's view with noise emanating that will likely drive people nuts. I think the rules need changing. When do my neighbor's rights impinge on my rights? When is he allowed to build a structure that will surely diminish the value of my property? Why shouldn't there be a hearing on buildings over a certain size? A small storage shed is one thing, but a double garage almost in my backyard is another. Tonight when you go to your home, go out in your back yard. Now envision a double garage in clear view spewing out wood planer screaming sounds that you'll have to live with forever. Wouldn't you want a process that says more than "if you're five feet from the lot line, let 'er rip?" Please consider some additional regulations for buildings of this size. I would expect more from Golden V alley (or should that be Garage Valley?). Thank you. " ..... t RICHFIELD . MAYOR MARTIN J, KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG SUZANNE M, SANDAHL GERTRUDE ULRICH CITY MANAGER SAMANTHA ORDUNO . . Community Development Department August 19, 2002 Dear Planning Commission Chairperson or Staff: The "First Ring Futures" forum, sponsored by the Richfield Planning Commission, is set for Monday evening, September 9th at 7:00 p.m. in the Richfield Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield. We invite Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff from Twin Cities first-ring suburbs to hear Myron Orfield discuss his recent publication "Valuina America's First Rina Suburbs-A Policy Aaenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest", issued by the Brooking's Institute. We encourage everyone to obtain a copy of this publication before the September 9th forum by visiting the Brooking's Institute web-site at: www.brookinas.edu/dvbdocrootles/urban/firstsuburbs/firstsuburbsexsum.htm Lastly. Please Call Jackie at 612-861-9760 to let us know how many people from your community plan to join us on the 9th. Also, please feel free to distribute copies of the enclosed flier to planning commissioners and planning staff in your community. Call Bruce Sylvester with any questions or comments at 612-861-9766. We look forward to seeing you on the 9th! Sincerely, David Gepner, Chairperson, Richfield Planning Commission. DG:bks Enclosed: Flier The Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861,9760 FAX: 612,861.8974 www.cj.richfteld.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FIRST-RING SUBURB FORUM MONDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 9,2002 7:00 PM RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING STAFF FROM FIRST-RING SUBURBS ARE INVITED TO HEAR MYRON ORFIELD CO-AUTHOR OF THE BROOKING INSTITUTE'S RECENTLY RELEASED REPORT "VALUING AMERICA'S FIRST SUBURBS". SPEAK ABOUT THIS REPORT AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Columbia Heights Crystal Edina Fridley Golden Valley Hopkins Little Canada Maplewood Mendota Heights New Hope Newport Richfield Robbinsdale Roseville St. Anthony Park St. Louis Park West Saint Paul South Saint Paul Falcon Heights North Saint Paul Bloomington * The Brooking's Institute report is available on-line at: www.brookings.edu/dvbdocroot/es/urban/firstsuburbslfirstsuburbsexsum.htm PLEASE CONTACT BRUCE SYLVESTER AT THE CITY OF RICHFIELD 612-861-9760 FOR MORE INFORMATION