Loading...
07-09-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, July 9, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - June 25, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Zoning Voting Requirements Applicant: City of Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Ordinance revision would change (reduce) the voting requirement for certain rezoning related matters from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority of all members of the City Council III. Informal Public Hearing - KQRS Rezoning Applicant: KQRS, Inc.lABC Inc. Address: Lot 1, Block 1, KQRS 2nd Addition (917 North Lilac Drive), Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to rezone the eastern portion of the property from Radio and Television zoning district to Business and Professional Offices zoning district -- 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. Strategic Planning Session on Telecommunications Ordinance - Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates, Members of City's Open Space and Recreation Commission, and Garrett Lysiak from Owl Engineering. VI. Adjournment \ e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 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, June 25, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. eese, lopment an. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Grog Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planni Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secre Commissioner Hoffman was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - May 21, 2001 Joint Meet and the Planning Commission; June 11, 20 I the City Council mmission Meeting Pentel stated that in the May 21,2001 minute "cite" was misspelled. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Ras approve the May 21,2001 minutes w otion carried unanimously to correction. e MOVED by Groger, seconded the June 11, 2001 minutes a nd motion carried unanimously to approve Informal Public H P .U.D. No. 95 - Preliminary Design Plan - Carousel Porsche Audi - Applicant: erty west of 8989 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN he P.U.D. would allow for the construction of a new Carousel Porsche Audi automobile dealership on property formerly owned by General Mills. Olson referred to his memo dated June 20, 2001. He showed the generallocati.on and proposed site plan. Greger asked if the proposal included the triangular shaped piece of property located to the south,! across the frontage road. Olson stated that the proposal does include that piece of property. e Olson explained that the development would allow for the construction of two buildings for an autorTlobile dealership, and would be located just east of the property of the current Carousel Porsche Audi dealership, which is at 8989 Wayzata Boulevard. He stated the overall development is 9.88 acres and stated the size of the Porsche building would be 13,400 square feet and the Audi building would 38,000 square feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 2 e He stated that the applicant may enlarge the Audi building in the future by adding an additional 1 ,760 square feet of building space to the north side of the building which would eliminate 19 parking spaces on that side of the building. Olson stated that the underlying zoning classification for this property is Industrial. He stated that the parking space requirements for that zoning district been met and that they would have 126 spaces. He stated that they would als 7 parking spaces for displaying automobiles. s,.. site plans were ASci f::to date, thQse aring notice for the t. Louis Park since the Olson stated that since this development abuts two state forwarded to MnDOT for their review and comments. H comments have not yet been received. He stated a co Planning Commission meeting was also sent to th property abuts the boundary. Olson explained why he didn't go into great d the setbacks required in the Industrial Zoning District versus the set the site plans in his staff report because the City Attorney recommen UD should be considered as it's own entity rather than getting varia the ndustrial Zoning District. Olson referred to one area on the site i owed a zero foot setback along Miller .. Street for an automobile display front of the Audi building. ., Pentel stated that develo asking for when applying explain what varianc City's normal zoni~ ~y various setbacks..'q was inside 0 outside of referred to east. ger stated tn e a ays been asked to justify the variances they are D. She asked Olson to go through the site plans and ant is asking for that they would not get under the. . Olson went over the site plans and discussed the eferred to the wall pictured on the site plans and asked if it property line. Olson stated he believed the wall was nd showed the Commission an aerial photo of the site.. He ~li!nd the homes to the south of the wall afld to the nature area to the ed what the setback requirement is from the nature area. Olson ment would be 25 feet, but that the applicant is proposing 8 feet. Eck asked if under normal zoning the triangular piece of property to the south would be usable. Olson stated that it would be unusable because it would have a 35-foot setback along Miller Street, a 25-foot from the nature area and a 50-foot parking lot setback on the south side. Pentel asked if the proposal meets the 35-foot setback along Miller Street. Olson stated that it does. Pentel asked if it was all right if ponds go into the setbacks. Olson stated yes. Pentel asked about the setbacks along Flag Avenue which is being vacated. OlsQn stated the setback along Flag Avenue would be 10 feet and the setbacks along Miller Street, e TH 169 and 1-394 would be 35 feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 e Page 3 Olson referred back to his memo and discussed the City Engineer's memo dated June 20, 2001 and stated that staff is recommending approval of the plan. Pentel asked where the applicant was proposing to put the pylon sign. Olson stated that would be a question for the applicant. e Pentel asked if they were proposin believed it would be one pylon a at the appropriate height in rela the regulations are regardin permitted in the City of G public service items on th ordinance. Baker sta are very strict and tha t setback for aesthetic Rasmussen asked if there are public safety reasons for having t along Miller Street or if it is for aesthetic reasons. Olson stated reasons. Jon Baker, 100 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, archite site plans and discussed the general layout of the site a showed pictures of the proposed buildings and disc areas. He showed the areas where they won't of the reason for the variances is due to the 0 the traffic flow and showed where the custom where the trucks would load and unload ct referred to the ing setbacks. He e setbacks in various acks and stated that part of the lot. He then discussed play parking areas would be and wo pylon signs. Baker stated he would like to place a sign that would be t rest of dealerships. Pentel asked what ard signs. Grimes stated that moving signs are owever, they have to show a certain amount of that the applicant would have to follow the sign design standards established by Porsche and Audi is not to have an animated sign. e that some of the fencing at the different dealerships in the he top and that some areas are unfenced. He asked what f fencing used. Baker stated that some dealerships put fencing cars are stored. He stated he wasn't sure how much fencing they Hansen, President of Lejune Investment, which is the owner of the dealership;a that when they purchased the existing properties the fencing was already up and that it's worked well for them so they've just kept it up. He stated that because of the visibility at the proposed site, and the insurance liability, they would prefer not to put fencing up, but they would like to see how it goes with theft and possibly put the fencing up at a later date. Pentel asked if they were to meet the setbacks required by the City on the piece of property to the south how that would impact the proposal. Hansen stated that already they are not getting as many parking spaces as they originally had planned for when they purchased the property, and that anytime they lose parking spaces it is a concern. He stated that they did look at putting the pond on that piece of property to south, but then they would have to pipe water under the street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 4 e Pentel opened the public hearing. Lori Kirk, 1301 Flag Avenue South, St. Louis Park, asked if the City of St. Louis Park received notification of this hearing. Olson stated that St. Louis Park was notified approximately two weeks ago. Grimes stated he talked to one of the staff member at St. Louis Park and they did say they got the notice, but it is their d .. n as to whether they pass on the information or not. Kirk asked what the radius' tearing notification for the people that are directly affected. Pentel stat t t radius is 500 feet. Kirk stated that she lives directly south of the wall me site plans and that she has received no notification of the proposal. Sh\ e Planning Commission table their discussions until the neighborh ;;0*er notification. She asked if there was a precedent anywhere in the City of ley for granting variances for parking lots being eight feet from resiBre' as and wetland areas. Grimes stated that the City has allowed varian ev ases for parking areas next to freeway walls and that's what they ar to do in this case. Kirk asked if the City of Golden Valley i ;u d to notify people in a SOO-foot radius of proposals like this. Grimes sition of the City of Golden Valley is to notify the adjoining city and leav em to notify their residents. Pentel stated that it's a boundary issue and a bor, Golden Valley notifies adjoining cities, but that we don't have ot s resident addresses in our database and it's up e to the adjoining city to noti nts. Kirk asked if she has a legal right to know. Pentel stated she didn't k , b he is assuming that she does have the legal right to know because sh ithin 350 feet of the proposal, but in terms of who is supposed to give the' he stated she thinks it's her own jurisdiction and that Golden Valley's n~c with notifying the City of St. Louis Park. Grimes explained that th 4!(j,w; g to be two more hearings on this proposal and that when he spoke to sta ark they've said they are going to send notification when this propo City Council. Kirk requested again that the proposal be tabled and stated s ' cerned about having a parking lot and truck noise eight feet from her be' om ow. e informal public hearing. Pentel asked the commissioners how they felt about tabling the proposal. Groger stated he thought Staff followed normal procedure in accordance to what the City Attorney has recommended in regards to notifying people and thought the Planning Commission should proceed. Grimes stated he would again talk to staff at St. Louis Park and ask them to notify the residents within whatever they feel is a proper distance. Pentel asked about the eastern boundary of the southern portion and how far it is to the wetland edge from the wall and where the wetlands begin. Olson referred to the aerial e photo and estimated that the wall is probably about 400 to 500 feet away from the edge of the wetland. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 e Page 5 Groger asked for clarification on the setbacks along the highway. Pentel asked if there is also a variance from what the normal setback would be from MnDot property on the north side. Grimes stated whenever abutting a right-of-way the setback is 35 feet. e e Pentel stated she is disturbed about the bump-out display area for cars being in the 35- foot setback area on Miller Street. She stated she doesn't like the . nces that are being proposed in the southern, triangular shaped property and cerns about the two curb cuts, relaxing the City's setback standards, losin e and the natural infiltration that now occurs. ''*lJD's. He stated it be a PUD that pected that there will be fit ity, that may be the case, atch he doesn't see a need in irements. He stated he's not in . ne. Groger stated he disagrees with City Staff on their inter seems there is an opinion that once they've decided tha setbacks and other issues go out the window and itt;~,l' substantial variances. He stated that if there i but in a new development that is being create~j allowing substantial variances to the City's se . favor of the proposal as it is, but that th to the southern, triangular piece of property ated she would be more comfortable with rtyalso. Shaffer stated the only setback he is r Street. He then suggested different options for they should talk to the project engineer about rm Engineering Company, 510 First Avenue North, k at putting the pond on the southern piece of blem is that the storm water from the site is picked up stem which is located on the northeast corner of the site and of the site and to put in on the southern parcel would be e stated that as far as piping the storm water under the street I, he wasn't sure how the City Engineer would feel about that have to be piped back up to the northeast corner. He stated that he ions regarding setbacks and they are giving an additional 352 square area along Miller Street to the City. Shaffer suggested that the pond b to keep the parking out of that ar the pond on the southern piece concerned about is the one ponds and parking. Grim these options. Chris Call, Minneapolis stated t property and that art by MnDot's stor that is also t working a to the south consid' 'ng it did som feet of setb Rasmussen asked ifthe pond that is shown on the southern, triangular property could be moved from the side to the bottom of the triangle to act as a buffer. Call stated that again, the pond is on the lowest part of the site and berms would have to be built to make it work. Eck asked if the wall limits the view of the site, or if it's a noise issue rather than an issue of seeing the trucks and cars parked on the site. Grimes stated that the noise in the parking lot would not be any greater than the existing noise that is there now from the freeways other than perhaps when they are loading or unloading cars. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 6 . Eck asked at what hours the loading and unloading of cars would occur. Hansen stated that cars have to be checked in by staff so if it's the middle of the night, the drivers would have to wait. Pentel asked if the trucks would idle while they waited. Hansen stated in the wintertime they would. Grimes suggested putting something in the PUD Permit about the loading and unloading of trucks could only occur on the west side. Hansen suggested maybe decreasing the setback along Miller Str nd. increasing it along the wall. Grimes stated the biggest impact to the area w~tiJ1d (::'f stated that the majority of the trees are going \j be c pond or a parking lot and even it were to sta een s because they are cottonwoods. Pentel u property. Hansen stated it was 1.33 on the other tated that there etbacks against a Eck stated that given the fact that the neighbors aren't able side of the wall it seems the primary concern should be n is noise and there is also precedent in terms of what to residential area. Grimes stated that parcel could wn and there could be a building constructed there. He stated it' nusual to have a twelve-foot wall along a e property line and it was put eason. McAleese stated that the wall is irrelevant as far as varian 0 rned. He stated there are two issues, one is setting a precedent and t is the noise. He stated the variances that are being requested on the no the property seem reasonable, but he doesn't like the proposed bump-o t playing cars. He stated that the City should hold to strict requiremen outhern parcel and supports the 50-foot setback for the south prope. 5-foot setback on the east property line on that southern parcel. down the trees. Hansen own whether it becomes a ce they would still be cut down e size of the triangular piece of 's also concerned about the southern piece of property and asked the looked at other alternatives for getting the parking spaces there into other areas. aker stated they've looked at dozens of different layouts for this project for both the north half and the south half. He stated it's an inefficient lot because of its triangular shape and that putting the pond on the south half of the property is just not feasible because of conflicts with utilities. He stated the only way to accommodate the setback requirements on the south piece of property is to reduce the number of parking space by approximately 50%. He addressed the issue of the bump-out area and explained that it is there to allow some sort of recognition of an element that has a relationship to the center of the building and to reinforce where the entrance is to the building and to have some continuity to the site. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 7 He stated that it doesn't need to be as big as they've proposed but feels it is important, architecturally, that there is a sign or some sort of site element there. Shaffer stated he understands why the bump-out area is there, but thinks the presentation space could be within the parking area without losing too many spaces. He asked since a lot of the parking is for storage, if any of the parking could be tandem parking especially on the south lot. Baker stated that they could consider that option in the lot. Shaffer asked if they could rearrange the parking configuration on the s there would only need to be one curb cut. Baker stated that if there were Ae at they .Jti"> couldn't use the south lot for loading and unloading that w a be i1ity. Grimes stated that if that differently and that th stated he disagreed a understands the he's concern like to ma requiremen g'm Miller Street. backs on the south shouldn't be designing this ects of the project and Pentel stated that she doesn't want to see tandem park She stated that she wouldn't support any encroachment piece of property. She stated that the Planning Com for them. Shaffer stated he was trying to looki asking questions about other alternatives. e Rasmussen stated it's an appropriate la about the noise and that the land is s . she thinks tandem parking is a goo Planning Commission's concern property and the screening had the setbacks on the souther e is nothing that can be done e used for parking. She stated that I n favor of passing it on, with the cil. She stated it is a commercial piece of oke at very carefully and that by sticking with roperty, that's the best the City could do. n't there, the City would have looked at this very nefit to the green space against a wall. McAleese f,een space is beneficial virtually any place. He stated he the developer and that overall they have a good plan, but erving the green space on the south piece of land and would ndation to the Council to preserve the normal setback southern parcel. acation of Flag Avenue would allow for more parking options. Call stated that is a utility easement there. Grimes stated that the additional property from the vacation would be going to the existing property and not to this new development. e MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the Preliminary Design Plan for Carousel Porsche Audi, PUD No. 95 with the conditions listed in staff memos from the City Planner, the City Engineer and the City Deputy Fire Marshal and also with the following recommendations: The loading and unloading of trucks would occur north of Miller Street, an attempt to retain a 50-foot setback on the south side and a 25-foot setback on the east side on the southern piece of property and the bump-out north of Miller Street would not be allowed within the setbacks. .... Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 8 . -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed, g Commission to and the Planning There was discussion nance they would like to the Planning Commission as the some money in the budget to PUD Ordinance. IV. Other Business McAleese stated that Council Member LeSuer would lik make a recommendation for a new PUD ordinance that Commissioners roles and he would present it to th about rather than making just a few changes tg~ change the fundamental way that it is written ahd ke keeper of the City Code. Grimes recommend utt' allow them to hire a consultant to help teiiit e V. Adjournment . , t' . e e ') Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing on Amendments to Chapter 11 (Zoning) of the City Code to Change (Reduce) the Voting Requirement for Certain Rezoning Related Matters from a Two-thirds Majority to a Simple Majority of All Members of the City Council-City of Golden Valley, Applicant Subject: Date: July 2, 2001 Prior to the end of the 2001 Legislative Session, the City staff became aware of a bill that was approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor relating to the number of votes needed by the City Council to approve certain rezoning related matters. The new law states that the adoption and amendment of a zoning ordinance may be by a majority vote of the City Council except in cases where the proposed amendment would change an existing zoning classification from residential to either commercial or industrial designations. The state law previously stated that the city may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a 2/3 'majority of all members. City Attorney Allen Barnard wrote the attached memo to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager. This memo, dated June 7,2001, outlines the City Attorney's opinion regarding changing the Zoning Code to require only a majority vote of all City Council rather than a 2/3 majority vote. In his memo, he also explains why this rule should apply to the vote on PUDs. (The proposal will be to keep the 2/3-majority vote for the.change of zoning classification from residential to commercial or industrial.) I am attaching a copy of the three sections that are proposed to be amended. The language would have to include that any zoning amendment that would change the zoning from a residential district to a commercial or industrial district would require a 2/3 vote of the entire City Council. The staff would like to emphasize that this change does not include changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map. Any change to that map requires a 2/3-majority vote of all City Council members. This gives added emphasis to the overall importance of the Comprehensive Plan and the need to give careful study to any such land use map changes. Recommended Action The staff recoll1mends approval of changes to the Zoning Code that requires that the City Council approve certain Zoning Code changes by a simple majority of the City Council members rather than a 2/3 majority of the City Council members. (Any proposed change of a Residential-zoning district to a Commercial of Industrial zoning di.strict would remain a 2/3-majority vote of the City Council.) The amendments would affect Section 11.55, Subd. 8, Section 11.80, Subd. 2(0), and Section 11.90, Subd. 3. .. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR MARY ANDERSON, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER WILLIAM S. JOYNES FROM: ALLEN D. BARNARD, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: June 7, 2001 RE: Amendment to Zoning Voting Requirements Effective May 30, 2001 the Minnesota Legislature amended the statutory voting requirement for rezoning matters by reducing it from a 2/3rds majority to a simple majority of all members of the council. The original authority for the super majority or "four vote" requirement was contained in Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. 2, which provided, in part, as follows: . . . [T]he governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a 2/3rds vote of all its members. The new language provided by the legislative amendment is as follows: f 'I e [T]he governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all _ its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of the zoning ordinance which ,., changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a 2/3rds majority vote of all members of the governing body. As a result of this new legislation, the law in Minnesota is to permit rezonings to occur with only a simple majority vote of all members of the council. However, since the approval of a planned unit development in Golden Valley has many attributes of a rezoning, the City adopted a conservative posture a number of years ago and required four votes for pun approvals. Language was added to ~ 11.55, subd. 8 of the City Code as follows: The affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the council members shall be required for final approval of any Preliminary Design or General Plan of Development. The question has been asked what impact the new legislation has on Golden Valley's PUD ordinance. It is my opinion that since the new legislation does not specifically apply to Golden Valley's PUD ordinance, the four vote requirement for PUDs is still the law in Golden Valley. However, since the four vote requirement in the PUD ordinance was based on the pre-existing state law which has been amended to a lesser requirement, I recommend that the City immediately amend its.PUD ordinance to require a majority vote for approval. I doubt it would withstand a court challenge by a developer. 153579_1 e . ,.1 I . e e '\ 9 11.55 4. A Servic tting forth the general locatio system r sewage, domestic water utilities an . hts-of-way, easements, Component s also contain a detail method of opera , and maintenanc and Facilities Component shall contain a nd extent of any and all existing and pr ed ply and distribution, refuse dispos ainage, local cilities and appurtenances nee ry therefor. Said statement describing the' osed ownership, of each such service ~/ cility. al Components e required such as: A ding Component, pro . for consideration for ers; and such other comp s indicated by the elopment. 7. Maps rid Reports shall be included such as: sup o scale, diagrams, charts, d criptions, reports and explanation of methods formulation. Subdivision 8. Nature of Public Hearing. At the public hearing provided for by this Section, the Council shall consider the staff and Planning Commission reports as have been filed with it concerning the application, shall hear from the proponents of the application, and shall open the discussion to questions or comments from persons notified of the hearing or claiming to have an interest therein. At the conclusion of the hearing, which may be continued from time to time, the Council, within the specified time limits, shall either approve, deny or refer the application to the Planning Commission for further consideration; provided, however, that in the latter event, the application must be placed back on the Council agenda for final approval or denial within 120 days following the taking of the latter action. The affirmative vote of t\...o thirds a maiority of the Council members shall be required for final approval of any Preliminary Design or General Plan of Development. 321 f . 'I,., 9 11.80 K. The Council sh bas pon any or all of the factors fo make I pproval of the permit contin to preve r minimize injurious effects' require tha fficient performance bon property own 0 insure satisfactory c tional use perm II make findings and shall grant or deny a permit d at Subparagraph G. above. The C cil may ntupon such conditions as it det nes necessary pon the neighborhood. The C cil may also ing by an acceptable sure e supplied by the pliance with the condi' s imposed by the condi- e . Construction nd all other pe t implementation relating to an approved condi' al use permit mu begin within twelv months of the date that the permit is approved the conditional use pe hall be deemed null and e Source: Ordinance No.5 Effective Date: 5-8-81 O. The Council shall have the right to revoke or suspend any conditional use permit whenever the terms or conditions of such permit have been violated or broken. All such action by the Council to r~voke or suspend a conditional use permit shall be by means of a two thirds majority affirmative vote. Source: Ordinance No.696 Effective Date: 5-1-87 (Sections 11.81 through 11.89, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) 367 e . . e e e " ~ 9 11.90 SECTION 11.90. ADMINISTRATION. Subdivision 1. Administr hereby authorized and directed delegate this authority to a the City, wh hall be directly under the Works. Such s shall have the followin ion and Enforcement. The Director of Public enforce all the provisions of this Chapt he administrative official or support sta mber of ntrol and supervision of the Dire of Public duties: B. To ceive, proc requests as stipulated in this apter. Subdivision 2. N 0 use on the effective date of Secti However, a nonconformi se (inclu expanded, extended, herwise alt non-conforming us all not be chan whether such ch e would be less structure that'. acated, or that ceas months, sh hot be allowed to be re provisio f this Chapter. No non-c permi to rebuild, or otherwise re to int where repair or replaceme t uilding, structure, and/or prope rming Use non-conforming use existing and in or provision of t hapter may continue to exist. g buildings and/or str res) shall not be enlarged, d in scope, character or in sical dimensions. A d to another non-conforming u egardless of n-conforming. Any non-conforming building, or to function or operate for six (6) conse 've tablished unless in full conformity with all a 'cable forming use, building and/or structure, shall be ablish itself, after having been destroyed or dama would exceed 50 percent of the assessed value of Subdivision 3. Zoning Map Changes and Chapter Amendments. No change shall be made in the boundary line of any zoning district, or in the permitted and/or conditional use or regulation for any zoning district, except after an official public hearing and upon a two thirds maiority affirmative vote of the Council. However. the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoninQ ordinance which chanQes all or part of the existinQ classification of a zoninQ district from residential. two family residential. and multiple dwellinQ sub-districts to either commercial. industrial, liQht industrial. radio & television and business & professional offices requires a 2/3rds maiority affirmative vote of all members of the Council. Zoning boundary changes or Chapter amendments may be initiated by the Council, or by petition of affected persons and property owners within the City. Upon receipt of such a petition, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission shall conduct an informal public hearing within sixty (60) days of receiving said petition, and after notifying all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property involved. Following receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Council shall conduct an official public hearing within sixty (60) days and make a decision thereon within ninety (90) days. 368 Il e Hey Memorandum Planning 763_593_80951763-593-8109 (fax) ~ To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Zoning Map Amendment from Radio and Television to Business and Professional Office for East Half of Lot 1, Block 1, KQRS 2nd Addition, KQRS/ABC Inc., Applicant Date: July 3, 2001 At the June 18, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council unanimously approved the Preliminary Design Plan for KQRS 3rd Addition, PUD No. 93. The Planning Commission reviewed this PUD at their May 14,2001 meeting and recommended approval on a 5-2 vote. The General Plan of Development for PUD No. 93 is now scheduled for a public hearing in front of the City Council on July 17, 2001. e There is one "housekeeping" item that remains for the Planning Commission to review regarding the KQRS PUD. This matter involves the rezoning of the east half of the property from the Radio and Television zoning district to the Business and Professional Office zoning district. The policy of the City has been to amend the zoning map so that the land use in the PUD is consistent with the zoning and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map. In the past, if a zoning map amendment was necessary, the hearing on the amendment was held at the same time as the preliminary design plan hearing in front of both the Planning Commission and City Council. The hearing on the rezoning would then be held and approved by the City Council prior to consideration of the General Plan of Development. The City Attorney now recommends that the final approval of the zoning map amendment occur at the same time that the General Plan of Development is up for approval by the City Council. This means that the Planning Commission holds it informal public hearing on the zoning map amendment after the preliminary design plan is approved by the City Council. This timing process eliminates the chance that the zoning map would be changed and the PUD application withdrawn prior to approval of the General Plan of Development by the City Council. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan map designates the entire KQRS PUD No. 93 for Industrial purposes. Therefore, the staff is recommending that the east half of the property be rezoned to Business and Professional Office. Within this zoning district, offices (which is the proposed use of the KQRS building) are considered a permitted use. The west half of the property will remain Radio and Television zoning which is consistent with the use of the property for three radio towers. The Radio and Television zoning district is consistent with the Industrial comprehensive plan map designation. Recommended Action e The staff recommends that the east half of Lot 1, Block 1, KQRS 2nd Addition (future Lot 2, Block 1, KQRS 3rd Addition, PUD No. 93) be rezoned from the Radio and Television zoning district to the Business and Professional Office zoning district. This Business and Professional Office zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map designation for the area and the proposed use of that portion of the PUD for an office building. ~ Hey Me oran m Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) e To: William S. Joynes, City Manager From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Public Hearing on Preliminary Design Plan Review for KQRS 3rd Addition, PUD No. 93-917 Lilac Dr. N.-KQRS, Inc./ABC, Inc., Applicant Subject: Date: June 12, 2001 At the May 14, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval (5-2 vote) of the preliminary design plan for the KQRS 3rd Addition, PUD No. 93. I am attaching a copy of the minutes from the May 14th meeting that details the discussion that the Commission had regarding this matter. In addition, my staff repor1 to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 2001 and the memo to me from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated May 7,2001 is also attached. In summary, the proposed PUD will allow KQRS to divide their 6.53 acres along the west side of TH 100 and south of Lindsay St. into two lots. The east lot would be the location of the existing building that formally housed the KQRS radio studio. It is now empty since KQRS moved its studio to Minneapolis. KQRS would like to sell this building as an office. The second lot would be the west lot that is the location of the existing three radio towers. KQRS would maintain ownership of this Ibt and continue to utilize the towers for radio transmission purposes. The mechanical equipment for the towers would be moved to the existing garage from the rear of the main KQRS building. Access to the tower or west lot would be through the parking lot of the KQRS building lot. e Recommended Action The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for KQRS Addition, PUD No. 93. The PUD will allow for the KQRS property to be divided into two lots and for the KQRS building to be sold for office space while continuing the radio tower operation. The use of a PUD for this proposal is reasonable because there is no other way that the building can be utilized for any other use other than a radio or TV station without the PUD due to the location of the office building on Lot 1 (east lot). The reuse of the building as a radio or TV station seems very unlikely. Because the building is in good shape, has adequate parking, adequate internal traffic circulation and good vehicle access, its use as an office building is in the best interest of the City. The staff recommends the following conditions of approval: e .. ...' . 1. e 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The Preliminary Plat of KQRS 3rd Addition prepared by Schoell and Madson shall become a part of this approval. The Site Plan and Watermain Service Plan prepared by Schoell and Madson and dated 4/26/01 shall become a part of this approval. The recommendations and findings in the report of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated May 7,2001 to Mark Grimes shall be a part of this approval. Prior to the occupation of the KQRS building for office space, all improvements indicated on the Site Plan and Watermain Service Plan shall be completed. Proposed Lot 1 is rezoned from Radio and Television to Business and Professional Office at the time of General Plan approval. The mechanical equipment for the towers is moved to the garage on Lot 2 prior to occupancy of the Lot 1 building for office purposes or no later than December 31, 2001. Attachments: Mark Grimes May 9th memo Jeff Oliver May 7th memo May 14th Planning Commission Minutes e e 2 .Uey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 /763-593-8109 (fax) e To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Information Meeting on Preliminary Design Plan Review for KQRS 3rd Addition, P.U.D. No. 93-917 Lilac Dr. N.-KQRS, Inc.1 ABC, Inc., Applicant Date: May 9, 2001 KQRS has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow the 6.57 acres that they own to be subdivided into two lots. At the current time, the KQRS property is all one lot with the , vacant KQRS studio/station at the east end of the property and the three radio towers located within the wetland area at the west side of the site. The. PUD would divide the property into two lots in order that the former KQRS building can be converted and sold as an office building and the three radio towers and equipment building can be maintained and owned by KQRS. The KORS property totals 6.57 acres. City records indicate that the property was first used for radio towers in the 1940's with the. first significant building constructed in the mid-1970's. The existing building has been expanded several time with the last expansion completed in 1994. Several variances have been granted by the BZA to allow the construction and expansion of the building and parking lot to within 4-5 ft. of the north property line. KQRS added two parcels to their site in the mid- 1990's in order to get adequate space for parking for the expanded station building. The properties that were added to the KQRS property were part of the Carson property that was adjacentand to the south of the KQRS property. With the reconstruction of TH 100, MnDOT has acquired property to the east of the KQRS building for roadway purposes. The acquisition has placed the building about 5 ft. from the new right-of-way line for TH 100. MnDOT also acquired the property indicated on the preliminary plat map as the location of the loop road (shown as KQRS Drive). This property was the location of the Carson home that has since been removed by MnDOT. This property was owned by KQRS when MnDOT acquired it. e The KORS property is designated onthe General Land Use Plan map for Industrial purposes. This map indicates that offices are considered a consistent use in the Industrial designation. Radio and Television stations are also consistent with this General Plan designation. The zoning of the property is currently Radio and Television. This zoning only permits radio and TV towers and transmitter stations. There are no conditional uses listed in this zoning district. The City staff and City attorney have reviewed the request by KORS in order to determine how KORS can sell off a lot for an office building and parking and maintain a lot for the radio towers. It was determined that the only way for this to be allowed would be through the PUD process because of the existing location of the KQRS building close to the north property line. A simple rezoning of the e proposed east lot to Business and Professional Office would not be permitted because the existing site does not meet the requirements of the Business and Professional Office district. A rezoning application can only be accepted if the site and building that is proposed to be rezoned can meet the . e e requirements of the new zoning district. In this case KQRS has received variances for the building to be located as indicated on the plans only in the Radio and Television district. These variances do not "carry over" if the building is rezoned to another zoning district. The PUD process will allow the proposed PUD with two principal uses on two lots and establish the exact requirements under which the development will be permitted. There are two stages of approval for all PUD proposals. This is the first, or the preliminary plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold; to give broad concept approval to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives the applicant some assurance of being on the right track and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission, in particular, the limitation of Preliminary Plan approval is clearly laid out. CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 60 provides that: The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications. Summary of Proposal KORS intends to divide the 6.57 acres into two lots. Lot 1 or the east lot is proposed to be 1.59 acres in size. This lot is the proposed location of the office building and parking lot for the office building. Lot 2 or the west lot is the location of the three radio towers and garage that will be converted to the mechanical building for the towers. (The mechanical room for the towers is now located in the existing KORS building.) As indicated on the attached preliminary plat of the KORS 3rd Addition, the existing building on Lot 1 is 14,330 sq. ft. in area. When this building is converted to pure office, the zoning code requires that there be one parking space for every 250 sq. ft. of office space. Therefore, the building would require 58 parking spaces. The Site Plan and Watermain Service plan prepared by Schoell and Madson and dated 4/26/01, indicates that the office lot will have 75 parking stalls. The Site Plan also indicates that the parking lot will remain essentially the same as it does today with the exception of restriping the parking lot and the elimination of some parking at the northwest corner of Lot 1 in order to have all parking on the Lot 1 rather than straying on to Lot 2. The preliminary plat indicates the site as it exists today with the exception of the loop road referred to as KQRS DRIVE and the west TH 100 frontage road that are now under construction. As soon as the loop road and frontage roads are constructed, the retaining wall along the frontage road will be completed and access to the KQRS site will only be from proposed KORS Drive. The Site and Watermain Service plan indicates the future layout for site access. This plan also indicates the revised parking layout. The KQRS building is one story with some basement space. It is a stucco building and appears to be in good shape. The garage building is also stucco to match the main building. It is also in good condition. As indicated before, the garage building will be converted to the mechanical buildings to service the three radio towers. The site is very difficult to access at this time due to MnDOT construction. Staff suggests that the best way to view the site is to park on Lindsey St. just west of TH 100. From that point, walk south along the fence of the duplex just west of TH 100. Follow the fence line to the rear of the KORS building and walk west along the rear of the building. At that point, the parking lot and radio tower area will appear. 2 Eligibility of Application PUD's are regulated under CC Sec. 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section come into play when . screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below in relation to the KQRS application. After considering the KQRS development in view of all four subdivisions, staff finds that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and may enter the preliminary design phase. PUD Definition PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.5, which allows development with two or more principal use structures on two or more lots if the area is greater than one acre. PUD Purpose and Intent Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's as set out in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd.1. According to Subdivision 1, the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." The type of development that is proposed by KQRS would be impossible with standard zoning due to the nature of the use, overall size and shape of the property, limited street access and location of existing buildings on the property. Standards and Criteria for PUD's City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Section 11.55, Subd. 5. Office and industrial uses are discussed in Subd. 5.C. There are eight items covered under this basic standard for Office and Industrial PUD's. Staff e believes that it can be demonstrated that the proposed development meets these requirements. The items are listed below with staff comment: 1. All office PUD's shall have no less than 100 ft. of frontage on a public street. This condition is met on the proposed new loop frontage road. 2. The development shall be served by City utilities. This development is now served by City utilities. 3. The surface water drainage shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. Since less than % acre will be disturbed with parking lot changes, no changes are necessary for surface water drainage. Drainage now goes into the wetland area on Lot 2. 4. The entire site shall be utilized as a PUD. In this case the entire site will beunder one PUD. 5. The off-street parking spaces will be painted on the surface as per a plan. This will be done as part of the plan as indicated on the Site Plan and Watermain Plan. 6. Provisions shall be made for off-street loading to service the business. The existing loading areas will remain as they are today. Typical office buildings will primarily receive materials from small UPS type trucks. Due to the dead-end driveway along the south of the office building, the owner may want to establish a delivery area at the west end of the building. As indicated in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, P.E., the parking lot has been designed so that it can accommodate large emergency vehicles. 7. Private roadways within the project shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. There are no private roadways in this development. 8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the Council in accordance with City landscape standards. The site has been landscaped in a manner approved by the Building Board of Review when the last addition was added in 1994. MnDOT will be e responsible for landscaping the areas adjacent to their streets. and in areas they disturbed as part of their road construction. 3 Completeness of Application Packet . The final screening of any PUD proposal for eligibility purposes is based on CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A., which establishes the various components that must be submitted at the Preliminary Plan stage of development. The staff has determined that all necessary information has been submitted. Planning Considerations The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. Staff will highlight various issues for consideration by the Commission: ZoninQ At the present time, the property is all zoned Radio and Television. Within that district, only radio and television stations and towers are permitted uses. Therefore, the KQRS building cannot be used for any other use without the creation of a PUD. The existing building has a number of variances that were granted to allow for the expansion of the building in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. Essentially, these variances allowed the building and parking lot to be constructed within 4 ft. of the north property line. The zoning code requires that side setback in 'the Radio and Television district be 100 ft. for buildings and 50 ft. for parking lots from adjacent property that is zoned Residential or Two-Family Residential. The setback from any street is 35 ft. In the case of the KQRS property, the recent acquisition of property from KQRS for TH 100 right-of-way puts the building about 5 ft. from the west frontage road and the parking lots within 2-3 ft. of the loop frontage road south of the KQRS building and within about 26 ft. of the loop frontage road along the parking area where driveway access is gained from the looped frontage road. e There was one variance situation that was missed when the KQRS building was expanded in 1994. The northeast radio tower is located about 65 ft: from the Two-Family residential zone to the northeast. This setback should be 100 ft. When this tower was constructed, it may have met the setback requirements at that time. All the other towers meet setback requirements. The garage that is to be converted to a mechanical building for the towers will not meet setback requirements. All buildings in the Radio and Television district must be setback 20 ft. from a side property line when adjacent to property zoned for Business and Professional Offices. At least 10ft. of this 20 ft. setback area must be landscaped. The proposal indicates that there will be a 5 ft. setback on the north and east side of the building and a 20 ft. setback along the south side of the building. None of these areas will be landscaped. In fact, these areas are paved areas for parking or access. However, there is no changed proposed from the existing situation as indicated on the preliminary plat. On the Lot 1 side of the garage, the parking lot will come right up to the property line around the garage rather than having a 10ft. green area for parking setback. As part of the PUD, variances would not be necessary. However, the City as part of the PUD approval would accept the site plan .indicating the exact location of buildings and parking. Any changes from the approved site plan for the PUD would require a PUD amendment. Access e City Engineer Jeff Oliver's memo addresses access issues for this site. Because of MnDOT construction and changes to access for this property, it was necessary that the City is comfortable with the new access arrangement for the office building and tower site. The parking lot has been designed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer and Fire Chief as indicated on the Site Plan 4 and Watermain Plan. The City Engineer indicates that there are adequate areas for the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. Overall access to the site will be improved after the construction of the new frontage road system. . Prior to TH 100 construction, access to the site was only from the west side of TH 100. The new frontage road system will have a connection under the railroad adjacent to the KQRS site to the east side of TH 100. This will provide improved access to this site from the east and south. Access to the tower lot would be by an easement over Lot 1. It is anticipated that the three parking spaces indicated south of the garage would be more than adequate to fulfill the parking needs of the mechanical building for the towers. It is not anticipated that this shared access arrangement will cause any problem for site access. EnQineerinQ and Construction Issues City Engineer Jeff Oliver, P.E. has addressed engineering issues in his memo dated May 7, 2001. This memo will be a condition of the approval of the preliminary design plan. Land Use The use of the KQRS building as office space is very similar to the way KQRS used the building over the past five years. In fact, KQRS used the building more intensely than most offices before they moved. As indicated on the plans, KQRS had more parking on site than an office building of similar size due to the employee count. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for KQRS 3rd Addition, PUD No. 93. e This PUD will allow for the KQRS property to be divided into two lots and for the KQRS building to be used for office space while continuing the tower operation. The use of a PUD for this proposal is reasonable because there is no other way that the building can be utilized for any other use other than a radio or TV station without the PUD due to the location of the building on Lot 1. The reuse of the building for a specific use such as a radio or TV station seems very unlikely. Because the building is in good shape, has adequate parking, adequate internal circulation, and good access, its continued use as an office building is in the best interest of the City. The staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The Preliminary Plat of KQRS 3rd Addition prepared by Schoell and Madson shall become a part of this approval. 2. The Site Plan and Watermain Service Plan prepared by Schoell and Madson and dated 4/26/01 shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and finding in the report from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, P.E. dated May 7, 2001 to Mark Grimes shall be a part of this approval. 4. Prior to the occupation of the KQRS building for office space, all improvements indicated on the Site Plan and Watermain Service Plan shall be completed. 5. Proposed Lot 1 is rezoned from Radio and Television to Business and Professional Office at the time of General Plan approval. 6. The mechanical equipment for the towers is moved to the garage on Lot 2 prior to occupancy of the Lot 1 building for office purposes. e 5 To Remain Radio and Television Zoning District WEST Cf;J / / / ./ I~' l~: ~ l~ !;8 '0 C) ~ ~ ! i ~ .... '" .0 ~ ;: '0 !'"' P 5 VI 400.00 cp I I I ,------- ' I ------- I i ;:; / .7if----:--' /)) I , <...(#" " I /+:10 G' I / /- lB-. I / /.....-. ,- . - -+'1-'.... : ( (>: d ..ST ' ' " · 6000 .J.. i __ 0 ' f \ (4)..", "...-' _" 8--_,,,,00'00" l' ,,\ · ~ . r ___J _._ - ___~ \'J'.-' ,____~- . \ 'I , _ ~ u__-'.-__ , . , ' ' , / / I '.' " --- ? .... , // I '. ' -- I ------ . --- rl'" 0 '. \' .. ,,":;.J : //// . \.. '.', : , / / '. ' , , <;- B- _ _ _ _- _ ~ __ \' L ..."',.... "- , '. \ I . L '. '. .---- '. '. --- - '. '. "'.. - \ <\, , ,> \ v --- \ 4'3.., - - - ~='I'Ifl, ~ d ... <5 ~ ,,; N '" o o o S87'42'S7"E .........-.. S14.04 . ~~~~~ .''--- .. To be Rezoned Business and Professional Offices PREliMINARY lAT OF KQRS 3RD .ADDmON 4. -DEMOTES IACllO MTDtNA "J.V. 0 -OEHOltS POST HllCAJOR VALl( c:J -DEH01[$ BURlED CUYWR( AHCHCR t!l ";!lENOtts mAH!FORIIOt . -ofHOlES IOU_ .. -cENOTES CAlE YAI.'ot: ~ ~. ~_~ 30 10 ~ .". - - ~ -DENOTES SEliIACK (IHDIIS1RAIL ZONING) Scale in Feel llIlIES:. LOT AREA$:. lOT I ft.18 50UARf FEET. 1.St ACRES LOt 2 .!!!S. SCUAAe: ml, .!:!!. ACftES GltOSJ AREA 281.42t SQUAR( RET. ..,7 ACRtS ElRSTwO CROSS 8!.ADINC FLOOR AREA 1'0 PMKlHG sPACtS ft'AnDt 1 PAlItCtNG $PACt FOR EACH 1n so. Fr. GROSS aJlLOlNC AREk 14,,330 $a. Fr. tlll51lHC PARKatC SPACES: '4 0 0 -"'I ~ ~I 5 . - 4'j3'j9"W ~ ..---.-- I .04 I ~-:::ll I >- - '-, I I .....--- ", .., <1\ I I I <( , (,,10> ~ ..,-:0': o~ 011 I ' ~~~ <O~ ~ I I I ..,~~ u.. ~I I 0 LOr ~~. ~ ~I : I . % 2 ~l I w 0('..0 "VIV(' II : f- l,I;> -'I -'Iii' h So l' I, : j:'= IVS..o 'f,f('1V -'I I, , Ul OJ? r I l;q)'; O-^' II I /O~ I I I I I ~ ~LJ l!IOOK:.051 PAGE: ., (17-100) CERTIFICATION '.hensbyul1lfytnaIIlllJSUl'V8)'_ prtporM lII'lClei' mr SUPl'.Vision DlICl. tIIot lamo~I.IInd~~.'he ro.s 0( tMS1Q1e of Miflnnolo. SCHOELL &< MAOSON. INC. EHCINEER! . S\RVEYORS . PLMNERS ... TE5TlG. EfM/<<lI'fIlOITM. SER\/lC(S 10*WAYlAlAIlClUI.lVMO.5t.I1E 1 IIIINH[TONKA,....~ (.12}S4ti~71101 F~-tOU -.l CUENT , . KQRS. n<c. GOLDEN VAlLEY, +TA ~ .~'.l -,- I Ricllo<1lol.Wi1Ii_M. LOCATION I," '--~ '@ ~~ I ~ z ~ ;1"""" ~_:,' ;;~:, ,''to,: @: t~';, f~~, ,t [i)j OlSI ,,1' '. ~ ...,. c=J c=J c=J CJ c=J r==l ~ CJ e Zoning Districts Open Development Residential Two Family (R-2) Residential Multiple Dwelling Sub-Districts: c=J (M-l) Maximum height 3 stories c=J (M-2) Maximum height 4 stories c=J (M-3) Maximum height 6 stories f}~;~.f2~;;1 (M-4) Maximum height 8 stories Commercial Light Industrial Industrial Radio & Television Business & Professional Offices Institutional c=J CJ c=J c=J (1-1) Sub-District (1-2) Sub-District (1-3) Sub-District (1-4) Sub-District 0-5) Sub-District ':':&11 r, ~ - ~==' r::;:r::;:!;::J;::J ~..,'~_.~.,.. ~ , \ \= , e bject Property: 917 North Lilac Drive QRS, Inc./ABC, Inc., Applicants VAILLE'Y GENERAL LAND USE PLAN RESIDENTIAL c=J Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre) rim Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) .. High Density (12 or more units per acre) COMMERCIAL I ~~/~11 Office .. Commercial (also includes Office) INDUSTRIAL ~ Light Industrial (also includes Office) 11II1 Industrial (also includes Office) r;;;;~ Open Space - Public and Private Ownership c=J Schools and Religious Facilities LC".-~',J Public Facilities - Miscellaneous .. Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous .. Open Water r--l Wetlands National Wetland Inventory - not field verified L--J (MInor adjustments made to 80me wetlands) ~ Railroad Existing Local Trail . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Local Trail Regional Trail --------- Proposed Regional Trail _PEl Pedestrian Bridge Road Rights-of-Way ------ Municipal Line 1 inch = 1.833 feet (j) Thibault ASSOCIAtU .-...... ""- - - Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020 Surface Water Management Plan e TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS Study and Ordinance STRATEGIC SESSION July 9, 2001 - 7:00 PM PI) rpose The Strategic Session provides you an opportunity to individually and collectively identify and rank what you think is important to have in Golden Valley's Telecommunication Ordinance. Results will be tabulated and a written report will be provided. RACK~ROIJND The City of Golden Valley has asked Thibault Associates to conduct a study of telecommunication towers and antennas. The study will serve as the foundation for a new ordinance which will provide up-to-date controls for location. construction. and maintenance of towers and antennas in Golden Valley. e The study is divided into three parts: Inventory, Strate~ic Session. and Ordinance. I. Inventorv- This includes a summary of the Telecommunications Act. a summary of the telecommunications industry, review of selected ordinances from communities adiacent to Golden Valley, an inventory of existin~ facilities in Golden Vallev and a review of Golden Valley's Ordinance. (Completed) 2. Strateeic Session-This consists of a meetin~ with City officials to identify: the essence of what a new ordinance for Golden Valley should contain. the City's expectations for the ordinance, key elements to include in the ordinance. and the approach to take in controllin~ towers and antennas. 3. Ordinance- This includes preparin~ a purpose clause, an outline of the ordinance, draftin~ the ordinance for review, anddraftin~ an ordinance for adOPtion. e Thibault A8SOClAlES U,,*,PIoIW*lg ~ -.....ot HouIInO 1 July 9, 2001 A~FNnA 1. Introduction (1 minutes) 2 Meeting Purpose and Background (2 minutes) 3. What You Like about Telecommunication Towers and Antennas (30 minutes) a. Listing of Likes b. Ranking the Above 4. What You Dislike, Don't Enjoy, Find Lacking, or a Defect in Telecommunication Towers and Antennas (40 minutes) a. Listing of Dislikes b. Ranking the Above 5. Goals for What Should be the New Ordinance (20 minutes) a. Listing of Goals b. Ranking the Above 6. Ranking Possible Provisions (25 minutes) 7. Concluding Comments (2 minutes) 8 PM . Towers and Antennas Study and Ordinance Strategic Session . Please indicate your feelings regarding inclusion of the following provisions in the new telecommunications ordinance. Strongly Somewhat Encourage Encourage Inclusion Inclusion e 1. Require co-locating facilities 2. Require documentation of need 3. Include strict setback requirement 4. Include strict height requirement 5. Limit the heightto less than 100 ft. in most instances 6. Limit the height to less than 120 ft. in most instances 7. Limit the height to less than 150 ft. in most instances 8. Limit the height to less than 200 ft. in most instances 9. Offer an extended height limit when more than 2 facilities on a tower 10.Specify separation of towers (minimum distance between towers) 11.Require strict structural standards 12.Require strict controls on removal 13.Require colors to blend with environment 14.Require strict landscaping 15.Set up a preference system for where towers should be located 16.Include strict control of illumination 17.Include strict control of signage 18.Require security fence 19.Require security (protection) of the site 20.Require architectural control for any building or structure or the ground 21.Require screening 21. 22.Encourage use of sites where natural screening exists22._ 23.Require location and configuration of towers to have 23._ a minimal visual impact 24.Include definitions related to towers and facilities 24. 25.Prohibit towers in front yards 25. 26.Include strict maintenance requirements 26. 27.At the time of application, require applicants to 27. have an approved federal or state license, if required 28.Include strict provision dealing with employees and 28._ parking e.g. none if in one of the more restrictive districts 29.Allowantennas (but not towers) as an accessory use 29._ 30.Require towers to be of a monopole design 30._ 31.Prohibit the use of guy wires in new towers 31._ 32.Include provisions for temporary or mobile towers 32. 33.Strictly control satellite (dish) antennas which are 33._ more than 2 feet in diameter 34.Consider allowing antennas on city street lights, park lights, and similar structures 35.Encourage use of high voltage towers for antennas 35. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16._ 17. 18. 19. 20. . 34._ 5 Neither Encourage nor Somewhat Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Strongly Discourage Inclusion THIBAULT ASSOCIATES July 9. 2001 . e e Towers and Antennas Study and Ordinance Strategic Session 36.Preference for a single unified ordinance rather than 36. integration of the various.parts into the various districts 37.Carefully tailor the ordinance to meet 37. Valley's needs and desires 38.Simplified ordinance instead of a complex one 39.Eliminate the Radio and Television Zoning district 40.Encourage towers to be located on public property 41.Require a conditional use permit for most towers 42.Allow for administrative approval with little or no use of conditional use permits 43.Require all new facilities to be designed to accommodate at least 2 antenna arrays/systems 44.Require all new facilities to be designed to accommodate at least 3 antenna arrays/systems 45.Allow towers/antennas in the Industrial District "out-right" (allow as a permitted use) 46.Allow tower/antennas in the Industrial District only 46. by a conditional use permit 47.Promote use of existing structures 48.Require a showing that the antenna can not be located on an existing structure in the area 49.Require antennas on building to be set back at least 49. 10-15 feet off the edge of the building 50.Limit the height of an antenna on top of a building 50. to 10-15 feet 51.Require a capacity analysis on need for a tower 51. 52.Prohibit towers in residential zones unless on public 52. property 53.Prohibit or discourage towers within 500-1000 ft. 53. of a residential district except when on public facilities 54.Encourage the use of light poles and similar 54._ structures in state right~of -way to be used as towers 55.Encourage the use of state highway right-of-way for new towers 56.Apply strict provisions to protect the image of buildings and land along the City's major traffic corridor (1-394, Highway 55, Highway 100, Highway 169). · Prohibit single purpose free-standing towers on private property along the following roads (an antenna or a light pole would be allowed): 57.1-394 58.Highway 100 59.Highway 55 6O.Highway 169 61.Spqqld the ordinance predetermine locatiQns wijerc towerS should be located Neither Encourage Strongly Encourage Inclusion Somewhat Encourage Inclusion Somewhat Discourage Inclusion Strongly Discourage Inclusion nor Discourage Inclusion 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 47. 48. 55. 56. 57._ 58._ 59._ 60._ 61._ 6 THIBAULT ASSOCIATES July 9, 200 I