Loading...
09-24-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, September 24,2001 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - July 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU10-04) Applicant: Richard Bonnin Address: Lots 7,8 & 18, Block 4 Tyrol Hills located at 1407 June Avenue South and 1408 Alpine Pass, both in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land in order to create a new lot to be accessed from Alpine Pass. III. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-89) Applicant: Airport Taxi and Town Taxi Address: 850 Florida Avenue South, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow vehicle maintenance services in the Industrial zoning district, in addition to the Permitted Uses of administrative office functions and dispatching of vehicles. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-90) Applicant: Auto Point, Ltd. Address: 9130 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow for outdoor sales of used automobiles in a Commercial zoning district. -- Short Recess -- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings VI. Other Business A. Presentation on Findings from Strategic Planning Session on Telecommunications Ordinance. S. Review Attendance VII. Adjournment e e e '" Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2001. A regular meeting of the Planning Coml1)issionwas held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chamb~rs, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 23, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groge Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Developm Planner Dan Olson, City Attorney Allen Barnard and.Recordi Commissioners Hoffman and Rasmussen were absent. leese and rimes, City isa Wittman. II. I. Approval of Minutes - July 9, 2001 Planning C Pentel indicated there was a correction to the min paragraph, second sentence. She stated the understanding. e four in the first nd should be MOVED by Eck, seconded by Groger July 9,2001 minutes with the above ried unanimously to approve the Informal Public Hearin ubdivision (SU08-05) Applicant: Address: & 196, Glenwood located at 501 Meadow Lane North, ,MN plicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land er to create two new lots from the three existing lots thattotal bout 16,000 square feet. Grime his memo dated July 18, 2001 and showed the general location and site plan. ted the applicants own lots 194, 195 and 196 of the Glenwood addition and that the lenwood addition is one of the earliest subdivisions platted in Golden Valley. He referred to the site map and indicated thatmanyofthe homes in thatarea are built on 40-foot wide lots. He stated that even today, a house could be built on a 40..,foot lot as long as it meets the setback requirements for the Residential zoning district. He stated the applicant would like to divide the property into two lots ofequal size and that the only way he could do that would be to get a variance from the subdivision code. Grimes discussed the current setbacks of the property and the variance criteria. listed in his memo. .. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 2 e Pentel asked .if something were to happen to one of the homes in that area if it would have to be rebuilt according to the current setback requirements. Grimes stated that if a home burnt down, they could rebuild it, but it would have to meet the setback requirements. He stated thathe feels 60 feet is a more reasonable lot size. Eck stated that even though the lots in the area were platted40- actually only a dozen or so homes that are truly on the 40-foo I homes are straddling the lot lines or on bigger lots so this p inconsistent with what is there already. Grimes stated th . subdivision and zoning code. He stated that the subdiv to meet the requirements of the zoning code and the on would be to grant a variance from the subdivision have to meet the requirements of the zoning c there are tof the . not be tency is with the ys that aU lots have IIow this proposal would say the lots don't McAleese stated that he agreed that the pro best thing for the City but asked Grime variance if he has any recommendati he listed in his memo. s reasonable and probably the to the criteria for the requested referred to the three variance criteria Pentel stated that this proposal sense, but approving the requested subdivision e variance sets a precedent ~,:might try to get as many lots as they can out of their property. Grimes st gre~a and stated that would be the difficulty in granting this variance. H that this proposal is a little bit different and that most of the homes in the a ouble lots. Shaffer stated that in terms of precedent, there has already ent set in this area with what's there. He stated that because there is dent there, this proposal makes sense, but it might not make sense in oth there is no precedent. t because this is a request for a variance there should be a hardsll_:i;.tGri sated that it's a unique area and there are some special circumst~' at are different from the code today. Pentel asked if unique neighborho conditions could be considered a special circumstance. Grimes stated that could be their recommendation. Paul Shaw, Applicant, stated that the precedent for 60-foot lots has already been set with the homes south of Woodstock Avenue. He referred to lots 187 and 188 and stated there is a home right in the middle that is too big for the homes surrounding it. He stated he is trying to come up with a solution where he can sell his land and not have a lot wherethere is more land than the neighborhood can bear, but at the same time, not have a lot that is too small to build on. e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 3 Eck asked the applic~nt if he had any intentions of enlarging or changing his home. Mr. Shaw stated that there are no immediate plans to do that. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing, seeing and hearing no one, she closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated that there are unique neighborhood characteristics' stated that this subdivision is a good solution for the property 0 well. se. She r the City as Groger stated the proposal does make sense even tho and stated there's greater protection for the neighborho one 50-foot lotthan two 40-foot lots. He stated he . ge is awkward the development of in favor of it. Eckstated he respects McAleese's respecU sufficient precedent in the neighborhood alre nceprocess, but stated there is ctly what is being proposed. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Ec requested subdivision with the con 2001, and also with the conditio carried unanimously to approve the I Grimes staff report dated July 18, "ance is to be granted by the City Council. III. Continued Informal Requirements ring - Amendment to the Zoning Voting Applicant: n Valley, MN rdinance revision would change (reduce) the voting ment for certain rezoning related matters from a two-thirds rity to a simple majority of all members of the City Council IS memo dated July 18, 2001 and stated that he talked to a couple et a feel for how they are approaching the new state law and stated that it was I ssible to compare how each city handles the approval of PUD's when he didn't completely understand each city's ordinances and practices. He stated the City Attorney, Allen Barnard is in attendance to answer the Planning Commission's questions about the need to change the 2/3-voting requirement. Barnard stated that the new legislation that changed the voting requirements for rezoning amendments is a big change and came as a huge surprise to him. He stated to really understand what it's about, the legislative history really needs.to be looked at. He stated that PUDs used to be referred to as contract zoning because it has a lot of attributes of a rezoning. He stated that technically a PUD doesn't change the underlying zoning so technically it isn't a rezoning. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page 4 e He stated that Golden Valley's PUD ordinance is unique and that basically, if someone meets the requirements for a PUD,all the underlying zoning requirements are thrown out and . the City looks at whether or not the proposed PUD makes sense for the location, for the City as a whole, and if it fits the Comprehensive Plan. He stated it was his advice in the 1970's that for a PUD, the City ought to require, b Iicy,a two-thirds vote because PUDs are more pervasive. Pentel stated that she feels a reasonable timetable fo She referred to section 1 allowed or if it means uses. Pentel asked if deal with section rewritten. Ec but stated this legislatl rewriti of th He stated that in recent years, the courts have been more property rights. If a City Council denies a rezoning, PUD that the Council must have findings backed up with sub since courts have become more vigilant in requiring rati it seems to him that if someone is denied a PUD a~", . four votes, but they only have three votes, the the legislation was effective on May 30,2001 ctive of urts have said He stated that s for denying PUDs because they. don't have u in court. He stated that een in operation since then. Eck asked about the implication of the u in the language of this legislation. Ba of voting but whether or not the Cit the same language. "may" rather than "shall" or "will" that the "may" refers not to the level dinance. He stated the old law had Ie for revising the PUD ordinance would also be g voting requirement sections of the zoning code. bd. 3 and asked if the word "permitted" means what is ave a permit. Grimes stated it refers to permitted 1.80 and 11.90 could be changed without having to ich deals with PUD's until the PUD ordinance is done being a timetable standpoint he understands what Pentel is saying, ange the issue. Pentel stated that the ideal time to discuss be at the next joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the Ordinance e d the informal public hearing originally opened on July 9, 2001. Bob Mattison, 1120 Angelo Drive stated he was an attorney for Graco in Minneapolis. He commented on Mr. Barnard's discussion regarding legislative history and stated that legislative history applies in court when there is ambiguity and confusion as to whata statute means. He stated that statutes are also subject to court interpretation or case law. He referred to Mr. Maynard's "legal research" memo dated July 5, 2001 and stated that it cited very persuasive case law and that Mr. Barnard has not cited any case law to the contrary for the proposition that a PUD is not an amendmentto the zoning ordinance. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23. 2001 Page 5 He stated the statute that was adopted in Minnesota, this past legislative session, very c1earlyapplies to zoning and rezoning and not to PUDs and that if it were intended to apply to PUDs,it would have said that. He stated that if the Minnesota legislature intended that the statute .col,lld tell cities to change to a majority from a super majority the statute would have said "must", not "may" and stated that if there were a controversy between the meaning ofthe words in a statute and th .slative history, the meaning of the words would prevail. e Nathan Fletcher, 4791 34th Avenue No moving into Golden Valley and thatth the requirements and bringing the timing. He stated he thinks it makes good sense to keep the super exists. He stated that in terms of council members needi down a request for pun two council members could ha asthree members could. He stated he disagreed with t challenge in this situation would automatically go make sense to have less than a super majority: and wide scope of PUDs. that now sons to turn asons just as much r nt that a court City and that it does not ause .of the special nature rn about more and more people d less open space and that easing UDs doesn't seem like it's good George Guthrie, 305 Sunn voting change .and asked . are being changed. Pent legislation and asked the Minnesota Ie . sked what the impetus is for the proposed e uld explain to him why the voting requirements that one of the reasons was the change in state e wanted to respond. Barnard agreed and stated that ready acted and the legislation is already effective. ord "may", opposed to "shall" or "will", still bothers him and stated islature had intended that the voting requirement change was a firm imposed on municipalities the legislation would have said "shall" Of Barnard stated that law adopting the original two-thirds voting requirements had the same language in it. He stated that was interpreted by the courts to mean that the only way cities could rezone was with a two-thirds majority vote and they changed the phrasing in the statute by changing the two-thirds to majority. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2001 Page.6 e McAleese stated that there is another part of the state statute that states when cities vote on things, they will vote using a majority unless there is specific language somewhere else .in the statute that states they can cusea super majority. He stated if that is true, then the use ofthe word "may" in the.statute really means "shall" as it applies to the zoning code generally. He stated there is still an issue about the interpretation applying that as a matter of public policy it makes sense to him to maint PUDs, but stated this is an area of law where it is appropria Attorney's opinion and he is going to support him and rec voting requirement change goes forward to the City Co j He stated r majority for eCity e proposed Eck asked McAleese in spite of how he feels perso forward if he thought it would not be supported' know how a court case would go, but when it City Attorney. Pentel asked McAleese if he t McAleese stated he doesn't think the la other issues are considered, the wise is supporting the change. He state vote with the City Attorney. tes case were brought McAleese stated he didn't issues of law, he defers to the tatute applies to PUDs. pplies to PUDs, but when the 's tomake the change and that's why he ment between attorneys he would Groger stated he has a stro he didn't believe a minori the City Attorney has outl to a majority vote,. it d be by majority vote. would need to b Groger how rezoning fr exception i majority rule and majority vote. He stated that Ie to block the will of the majority. He stated gical case that if rezoning.matters are being changed nse that the CUP and PUD ordinances should also at the elected officials and the Planning Commission h more careful and vigilant with their votes. Eck asked Lalizes the retention of a super majority when it comes to to commercial and industrial. Groger stated that that specific e state statute and there is no choice about that. e is troubled, knowing that a particular proposal is waiting for this change, be e Golden Valley already has a policy in place and the new law would be changing the rules of the game. She stated she is convinced that this change needs to be done in terms of the rezoning sections of the code. She stated she would be more comfortable changing the super majority vote if the City had in place, a changed PUD ordinance that required more from developers up<front, encouraged more participation from the public and meaningful questioning by the Planning Commission prior to proposals going forward. She stated she could not support the portion of this change to the PUD ordinance because the Planning Commission and City Council are in the process of changing the PUD ordinance. She stated that she could not support the proposal if it goes forward as one package with the PUD ordinance included. e # . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23,2001 Page 7 Shaffer stated there are a lot of persuasive arguments both ways. He stated he thinks that the PUD ordinance is part of the zoning code and that he's not sure the Planning Commission has a lot of control over changing the rules of the game because the State changed the rules, not the City. . He stated that because a PUD is such a broad sweeping ordinanc stay a super majority vote, however, he recommended that the i City Council. thinks it should rward to the Eck stated that he would support retaining the super ma' MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion the proposed amendment to change the voting re vote to a simple majority vote only in section 1 animously to approve from a two-thirds majority nd section 11.90, subd. 3. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger t change the voting requirements from a in section 11.55. Commissioners Pe the proposed amendment to rity vote to a simple majority vote otedagainst the proposal IV. Reports on Meeti Council, Board of using and Redevelopment Authority, City Appeals and other Meetings There was discus' expecting Carou July 17 Council Meeting. Olson stated that he was biles General Plan application soon. A would be considering the Sheriff Site at their August meeting V. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:25. . e e ,. Hey OiiiG i Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Rainbow Estates, 1407 June Ave. S.-Richard Bonnin, Applicant Date: September 20, 2001 Description of Proposed Subdivision Richard Bonnin has applied for a minor subdivision of Lot 18 and part of Lots 8 and 9, Block 4, Tyrol Hills and Lot 7, Block 4, Tyrol Hills. The proposal is to replat the properties into three lots that would allow for the construction of two new homes on Alpine Pass. The exsiting home at 1407 June Ave. S. would be located on one of the new lots. The total area of the property in the minor subdivision is about 41,000 sq. ft. Two different parties currently own the properties. Lot 18 and parts of Lots 8 and 9 are owned by Alan Bloom and John Crosby and are the location of the home at 1407June Ave. The home was built in 1953 with a garage addition built on to the north side of the house in 1972. A variance was granted by the BZA to allow for the construction of the garage to within 6 ft. of the north property line. The City records indicate that in 1966, there was an administrative subdivision that allowed for the alteration of the property line between Lots 8 and 9. This changed allowed for an increased sideyard area for the north side of the home while eliminating some of the frontage of their property along Alpine Pass. Richard Bonnin and Paul Kaminiski own Lot 7. They have a purchase agreement with Alan Bloom and John Crosby to purchase the east 1/3 or so of their property (Lot 8) and add that to Lot 7. This would allow for the creation of two lots that would face Alpine Pass as indicated on the proposed subdivision. Houses are proposed to be constructed on each of the two new lots facing Alpine Pass. As indicated on the preliminary plat, the plat would create three lots. Lot 1, or the location of the exiting 1407 June Ave. home would have access from June Ave. as it does now. It would no longer have frontage on Alpine Pass. The new Lot 1 would be about 28,500 sq. ft. in area. As stated above, a variance for the construction of the garage was approved in 1972 that allowed the garage to be constructed to within 6 ft. ofthe north property line. (According to the preliminary plat, the setback of the garage is actually 6.5 ft.). The survey indicates two encroachments on to neighboring properties by the fence and driveway for the 1407 June home. The new Lot 1 provides for the required setback on all sides (except where the variance was granted). The rear setback requirement is 20% of the lot depth. The existing home meets or exceeds the rear yard setback. Proposed Lot 2 is the new lot created with the east 1/3 of the 1407 June Ave. lot and a sliver of the old Lot 7 to the south. This lot is just over 10,000 sq. ft. in area (minimum lotsize). The preliminary plat indicates the minimum building setback areas. There is more than adequate space to construct a house within the required setback area. . Proposed Lot 3 is most of old Lot 7 (a small sliver off the north part of old Lot 7 was added to make proposed Lot 3). This lot is about 13,600 sq. ft. in area. This lot will provide more than adequate space for a new house within the required setback area. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision As part of the review of this minor subdivision, the City must first determine if the proposed subdivision qualifies to be considered a minor subdivision. In this case, Rainbow Estates qualifies asa minor subdivision because the properties are currently part of an existing plat, the proposed subdivision creates four or fewer lots and the subdivision does not require any additional public improvements. The preliminary plat of Rainbow Estates provides all the information that is required as part of the minor subdivision application. Conditions of Approval The minor subdivision section of the Subdivision Code lists a number of conditions for approval or denial of a minor subdivision. These conditions are listed below with comments regarding the Rainbow Estates subdivision: 1. The minor subdivision shall be denied if the proposed lots fail to meet all the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this case, each ofthe lots meets the minimum requirements of the Residential-zoning district. In 1972, a variance was granted by the BZA to allow for the construction of the garage on the north. side of the home at 1407 June Ave. This makes that setback legally non-conforming. e 2. The minor subdivision shall be denied if the City Engineer determines that steep slopes or excessive wetness encumbers the buildable portion of a resulting new lot In this case, the lots along Alpine Pass are located on steep slopes. As indicated on the preliminary plat, the property falls off about 25-30 ft. from west to east. Due to this slope, the City Engineer asked the applicant for a geotechnical review of the site. This review was done and submitted to the City Engineer. Chosen Valley Testing did this review and it is attached. They now need to submit applications for drainage and erosion control and tree preservation. Despite the steep slopes on the lots, with careful construction techniques, the lots are buidable. 3. The minor subdivision may be denied if public water and sewer. are not available to the site. In this case, City utilities are available in Alpine Pass. e 2 4. Certain easements may be required to be dedicated as part of the subdivision. In this case, the applicant has proposed the dedication of drainage and utility easements as e required by the City Engineer. 5. Certain minor subdivision requires review by other public agencies. In this case, no other. public agencies have review except with the approval of the final plat by the County Surveyor's Office. 6. The applicant may be required to submit title work to the City to insure that all ownership issues have been addressed. Inthis case, the title work has been submitted and reviewed wit~ no issues being raised. 7. Approval of minor subdivisions may be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee at time of final plat approval by the City Council. This matter will be reviewed with the City Attorney to determine if a park dedication fee will be required. This will be determined prior to going to the City Council for final plat approval. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision of Rainbow Estates. The subdivision meets the requirements of the minor subdivision section of the Subdivision Code (Section 12.50). With proper design of the structures, new homes can be built on the two new lots despite the steep slopes. Concerns regarding construction on the steep slope will be addressed in the review of the building plans and the erosion control permit issued by the Public Works Department. The geotechnical review provided by the applicant indicates that such construction is workable. e Attachments: Preliminary Plat Chosen ValleyTesting Geotechnical Review Section Map e 3 Chosen Valley Testing iill Iii! ili! iii! I: !:i iii: Ii!! Iii! 1III Illi Geotechnical Engineering and Testing' 2130 S. Broadway, Suite 470' Rochester, MN 55904' Phone (507) 281-0968. Fax (507) 289-2523 e Paul Kaminski c/o Best & Flanagan LLP 4000 US Bank Place 60 I 2nd Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55402 May 11,2001 Re: Geotechnical Review Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Tyr'Ol Hills Addition Golden Valley, Minnesota CVT Project #2001.096 Dear Mr. Kaminski, As authorized by David Vieau of Vieau Associates Inc. on your behalf, we conducted a geotechnical review of the above lots in Golden Valley, Minnesota. This report summarizes our findings. Existing Conditions The 2 lots are situated on Alpine Pass, just south ofWayzata Boulevard and east of Highway 100 in Golden Valley. The lots are undeveloped and are steeply sloping with hardwood trees on the slopes. Data Collection Background Geologic Information: To assist our evaluation, we reviewed published geologic maps of the area. According to map M-54, Quaternary Geologic Map of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Urban Area, by Gary N. Meyer of the Minnesota Geologic Survey (1985), much of the land along 394/Wayzata Boulevard originally consisted of organic deposit overlying glacial soils. A few pockets of organic materials exist relatively close to the southeast, southwest, and across 394. Otherwise, their concentrations (before development of the corridor) were greatest west of the site. e According to the map, organic soils would not be expected to exist at the site. The natural soils would likely consist of ice-contact glacial soils: consisting primarily of sands, silty sands and gravels interbedded with complexly mixed glacial clays. Field Observations: To provide more direct confirmation of the site conditions, a senior engineering assistant from our firm visited the site on May 10, 2001, and performed three shallow borings with a hand auger. The borings typically encountered about 1 112 feet of topsoil (slightly organic silty sand). The underlying soils were primarily silty sands to a depth of 2 112 feet, followed by clayey sands. These findings are consistent with the background geologic data. Analysis Based on the background information, the soils at the site were expected to be glacial soils _ primarily silty sands but including other materials. Our field observations confirm that these are the dominant conditions. We did not observe signs of filling. e LaCrosse, Wisconsin Chosen Vaney Testing Rochester, Minnesota ,. Paul Kaminski CVT Project #2001.096 May ll, 2001 Page - 2 e Ice-contact glacial soils can be somewhat variable, but are considered to be excellent foundation materials. We would not expect significant soil corrections or foundation problems associated with these deposits. In addition, the organic soils, which are a concern in the area, are not to be found below these deposits. Summary and Conclusions In summary, based on a review of the geologic data and our site reconnaissance, the soil conditions are expected to be suitable for support of the proposed home. The organic materials that are more typically of concern in the area do not appear to exist at the site. As a precaution, the building excavation should ideally be reviewed by qualified personnel. For lack of any expectation of unsuitable materials, this review would ordinarily be done the City Building Inspector. Level of Care The opinions summarized in this report. have been generated in accordance with the standard level of care provided by others perfonning these services in this area. No other warranty is made. Remarks We appreciate the opportunity to providing our services to you. If you have any questions, please call us at (507) 28 I -0968. e Sincerely Chosen Valley Testing Certification I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota ~~~.... Ci~ . erd , PE ~gJ tion n er: 018983 Date: May 11, 2001 cc: City of Golden Valley Attn: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer e LaCrosse, Wisconsin Chosen Valley Testing Rochester, Minnesota <:: ~ (b "< . r- o -4 85 t: ::i . 0; ij; '" 0 8S 10\ '0 r t \ r , < 1 ~ Q o ego Q!" r'" p .. QII \ \ ~ ., ! ~ c r c ( t.., C C ~ t , r (. :II ':C e~ - - \ ...---- 25;6.1 S ~cs. _.:.... <::'" -:) .i .. e ~.. " . . . . Memoran m Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) .Uey To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 850 Florida Avenue South- Airport Taxi and Town Taxi, Applicant Date: September 20,2001 Airport Taxi and Town Taxi is proposing to lease an existing building at 850 Florida Avenue South to house their taxi business, which includes regular taxi service as well as taxi service to the airport. The business entails administrative office functions, dispatching of airport taxis and minivans, touch-up painting for vehicles, and minor automobile repair (for example, engine tune-ups and oil changes). No gassing or cleaning-up of vehicles will take place. The Golden Valley City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use in the Industrial zoning district: "Automobile repair shops, auto body repair and/or painting, and auto cleaning and reconditioning" can be found under Subdivision 4. "Conditional Uses" (attached). Also attached is a location map that shows the location of the building the applicant is proposing to lease. The Building, The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the existing building, which is a 1-story building that consists of a brick portion which houses offices and. a steel warehouse portion that will house the automobile repair and maintenance for the business' vehicles. The combined office and warehouse buildings have a footprint of 19,350 square feet. There is 6,753 square feet of office and 12,597 of warehouse space. The building was constructed in phases in 1958, 1963 and 1968. The building is now vacant. The two previous lessees for the building were Tioga, which manufactured heaters, and Data Dispatch, which is a package delivery service. The only changes proposed to the exterior. of . the building are the removal of the loading dock on the south side of the building, the addition of a large entry door on the west side of the warehouse, and windows added to the office area on the east side of the building. Parking, It is the opinion of City Staff that adequate parking for this site is being provided. The Code does not have specific requirements for this exact type of automobile-related use. The closest parking requirements are for "offices" and for "warehousing and storage". Based on these uses, the site would require 52 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that they have the following parking needs: · 16 employees working from 8 AM to 5 PM for office and vehicle maintenance · 6 employees working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week dispatching vehicles · Parking spaces for 20-30 new taxi vehicles Therefore, the applicantwill have a need for parking spaces for 55 vehicles. It is staffs opinion that the site can accommodate parking for that number of vehicles. The City Engineer, Jeff Oliver has reviewed this Conditional Use Permit and is requesting that the applicant pave the gravel parking areas to the south and rear sides of the building. This is required according to City Code Section 11.70 , Sub.d 7 (C). This would also entail adding concrete curb and gutter. The applicant will be providing a parking lot plan at the Planning Commission meeting. Setback/Code Issues. The subject property is zoned Industrial and is surrounded on all sides by industrially zoned properties. To the south of this property is located an auto body shop and to the west is a car sales dealership. This property does not meet the north side yard building setback of 20 feet, and the front yard building setback of 35 feet and is therefore considered a non- conforming structure. However, according to City Code Section 11.90, Subdivision 2, relating to non-conforming uses, this is not an issue since the building footprint is not proposed to be changed. Environmental Issues. Because the applicant will be paving the parking lot, the applicant is required to complete and submit a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control application. According to City Engineer Jeff Oliver, a storm water retention pond is not required for the site. Factors for Consideration In approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to the current proposal are as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market of the proposed good or service. That criterion has been met in this case. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan identifies the proposed site for long-term industrial use. Automobile-related services, by conditional use, can be considered for that land use classification. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Approval of the CUP will not substantially alter the extent or nature of on-site development or activity. The use is compatible with other uses in the area. 4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and Congestion in the Area: Staff believes that this land use would not cause undue congestion for this area. The normal hours of operation will be from 8:00 AM. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday for most employees. As indicated earlier, approximately 6 employees will be on the site for dispatching of vehicles 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No customers will be coming and going from the site. It is staffs opinion that this business will cause minimal traffic congestion for the area. 5. Effect on any Increase in Population: Staff does not believe that the number of employees that will be on site will cause an impact to the area. 6. Increase in Noise Level: At this time, staff has no reason to expectthat noise impacts will extend outside of the building. 'wI . . . '. . . . 7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke. Gas, or Vibration Caused by the Use: The City Inspection staff has reviewed the issues concerning this use. Their comments are attached for your review. These requirements would need to be met before occupancy. 8. Any Increase in Flies, Rats. or other Vermin on the Area Caused by the Use: There should be nO increases in these pests, because the proposed business is not the sort to attract them. 9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: Any proposed signs would be regulated by the City's Inspections Department and will have to meet established standards. 10. Other Concerns Regarding the Use: Modifications to the building will need to be addressed by the Inspections Department. Also, because the applicant has indicated that outside storage of vehicles will take place, screening will be required. The applicant has indicated that there will be a fence around the entire property. Parking will not be permitted within the required landscaped area. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the following conditions be made part of any approval of a Conditional Use Permit for auto-related services at 850 Florida Avenue South. An approved site plan becomes a part of the CUP approval. 1. Only those vehicles being serviced for Airport Taxi and Town Taxi may be parked in the building. 2. The applicant shall pave the parking areas on the site, adding concrete curb and gutter. No parking shall be allowed within the required landscape area. 3. Any signage for the building must meet the signage requirements of the City's Inspection Department. 4. Any outside storage of automobiles shall be screened SO as to not be visible from adjacent properties or streets. No storage is permitted within the required landscape area. 5. Any spray painting that would take place on site would require an engineer designed plan with approval by the C!ty Inspection Department. 6. The recommendations of Ed A!1derson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated September 10, 2001 become a part of this approval. 7. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 8. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. Attachments: · Section 11.36, Subd. 4 · Location Map · Narrative submitted by Airport Taxi and Town Taxi · Photographs of site · Memo to Dan Olson from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated September 10, 2001 · Site plan dated September, 1993 · Building interior site plan .) S 11.36. Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council fOllowing the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: District. A. All conditional uses as provided for in the Light Industrial Zoning B. Car wash. C. Structures and premises for automobile, or other motor vehicle sales and showrooms, with incidental accessory service and repair facilities. D. Gasoline service stations. E. Bulk storage of gas, fuel oil, chemicals, and other liquid or solid materials which may be considered hazardous or toxic. F. Mortuaries. G. Off-street parking lots for adjacent Commercial or Industrial uses. H. Outdoor sales including motor vehicle and equipment rental. I. Drive-in retail establishments, such as banks, cleaners, photo shops, restaurants (Class II), and similar uses. equipment. J. Unattended business operations, such as vending machines and K. Temporary structures such as tents or air-supported structures. N. Heliports, as herein defined. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 293 (6-15-98) . . '. . r . Airport & Airline ~ Taxi-Cab Corp. Serving all your transportation needs _J . August 30, 2001 Mr. Mark Grimes Director of Planning City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Ref: Zoning for 850 Florida Avenue South Dear Mark: We are proposing to use the 850 Florida Ave. S. site for: . 1. Administrative functions. 2. Computerized dispatching operations. 3. Preventive maintenance on our company owned mini vans and sedans. Our company currently has 43 employees and our dispatching services are offered 24 hours per day 7 days a week. During normal business hours we will have 15 - 20 employees on the premises. If you need any additional information please call me on telephone 952-848-8144. Thank you in advance for your assistance. il L. issner xecutive Vice President and General Manager . 6525 Oxford Street. St louis Park, MN 55426. (952) 848-8140. Fax (952) 848-8154. (800) 464-0555. (800) TAXI-CAB MelTIornndum To: Dan Olson, City Planner From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: September 10,2001 Re: Plan Review Comments Listed below are my plan review comments for the conditional use permit for 850 Florida Ave South. 1) "No Parking Fire Lanes" signs shall be installed in the main driveway of the building. The installation of the signs shall be in accordance with the City of Golden V alley Ordinance and in conjunction with Golden Valley Fire Department Standards. t'.. 2) The existing fIre suppression /sprinkler system shall be designed for the type of occupancy and storage of motor vehicles. Fire extinguishers will be required tj1rough out the building. See Fire Marshal for more details. 3) The fIre regulations for storage and preventive maintenance on vehicles will be in accordance with the Minnesota Fire Code. 4) Provide the proper clearance in front of the fIre department connection for the fIre suppression system. The fIr department connection is located on the East side of the building. 5) Provide an audio and visual devices in constantly occupant locations in the building. If you have any questions please call me at 763-593-8065 . . . 1 N e ..... - I.J () .:::: ..... o u ~ SCALE: 1-=30' ..... .'" ~ LLLJ o 10 20 30 FEET 0') C) <:5 1'-... - r..u e :t tC) -~ <:1 r-- ~ <: .e; P~wer .Pole /1 wdh Lde ~ - ::.. Q ~ "" Q Q. r--- r - €dge of Bituminous Bituminous Area I J i AREA OF STANDING WATER , --0 ,-A.--~------ I I I I I I I I I. I I <:1 I _ <:1 ! ~ <:5. . 0 "- lc3 l~ I & ! f I ~ I I I : I I I I I L- -f Crave! Ared ~ \ N 89<40'15'" W ~ {MIce e I EXPLANATION + SOIL BORING (B-1, HA-1) . . . ) ------ - Bituminous ~ O . " r1veway ~ i " -"/ ~ S 89.40~15. E <'i 290.16 ~ r TRENCH DRAIN EXIS77N BUILD/NUl WELL o SHOP TRENCH DRAIN OFFICES , ~r s.. 0.,./1 A , '0 '"1 " ~ I ; ~', I ! I ~. SpUt:. n.," V. r-~ =ztr_. g' @J en uJ U u: LL. o g .g c 11 0:: ,.- 'r ' '- ~, ~ EX/STlNC BUILDING "1': 288.-18 -J Bituminous Parl<ing Area L------ ~ BRUCE A UESCH ASSOCIATES.INC. WVOQOlQGlSTS' GCOlOGlStS . E~MfNI'< SClENTISlS ............- af ~I r I \() l><l ~ Cti <\f - r..u kjl ~I ~ r II c' ~. i ~ /',.. - - I ;..: ll)' <..i ~ ~. I ~ ~ () ~ ~I ~ 0 I :S ~ , - = a tC) -~ <:1 :-- ~ ~I CJI --.. I 0::1 ()~ ~II l () :S ..... o o .~ " ..... '" () I..J i ) ,/ I I RYAN CONSTRUCTION-850 FLORIDA AVE: SOUTH SEPT 93 Ie SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION "NO SAMPLING MAP AsSET & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIAMOND HILL CENTER .ITE ONE HUNDRED 01 HIGHWAY SEVEN ST. LOUIS PARK. MN 55416 OFFICE FA X (952) 920-8555 (962) 920-8474 September 20, 2001 Dan Olson City Planner City of Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 RE: 850 Florida Avenue S. Golden Valley, MN 55426 Dear Mr. Olson, e I am responding to your Notice of Informal Public Hearing dated 9/13/01 regarding the above referenced property whichis adjacent to my property, WestparkCenter. I have concerns about issues that might arise ifthere is insufficient parking for Airport Taxi on their property. Although street parking is not allowed and thus will not be addressed in your report, I feel that if cars are possibly parked on the street, it will generate a poor image and detract from the entire area. In addition, it may create traffic and ~afety issues, especially during the winter months. Another concern of importance to me is the probability that the employees of Airport Taxi would park cars on the adjacent parking lot which I own that is north of the property. This would require that I issue parking permits and continuously monitor the property to ensure compliance resulting in added time and expense. Please address these concerns with the potential occupant. If you may have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly . ?;2/P Mark A. Saliterman President Westpart Center, Inc. . MAS/vI ~------- --... ..,,-' . . I ... Jt ,e ,- p f I I (, '"" .... ) ~ 12 "'~~ C ' ,W! , ~ '- , < " .,. -- -- e ~ i o , i:-. " ... ~ ... .,>> ~ to! - with Lit. N 02010'45- E PO# NJH ., ; 0... , ""' ~ ..J::. (,. 1 l' ~ w I ..-- ~ 2.1 ~ ~ 1.0' ~ .. -f- '" C' ~ ..... 't: It ~ ~ s '~ ~ "'"- o , eQ f-- t-q ~ ..s> "......, I" ~ -D_ 1 6 '0 .- '" ...... bot ~ 3Q' ~ :;;. }.o"" "..... .0'_ - "\ ,1' ~ .. ," .... I .... ..... "" , '" t } ..... ..... . J7D.09 >,' , '" ,.. -.)1 I "Jet t., R.L. OIl - ~ ~ 1 ~ " .~ -;..7 ---7 " \ " , ~ ~ ~ ~ ./0'- . z..o' G. · 80:3 \" ~ ,.... I J ..... f' ..,. ~ -.; '. .~~~ ' ! ::J ',~~ ~ ~ iO~;:I . erei ii:Z~ ~ ::b. Q:~ ~ii~ II) . i ~I'-l ....... 1.>-3." I ~__ I - f_\V. lJ\ s..\ i 3' :t-. ::t- Ot : ~ d ~ c~ 'I.' jt-- (! V. 1-- C\ t1\ 1 ~~ <'1'1.\ c... n--- \i\. ~ ~ &l~ -""U\ 0) .,. r"'l . e . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Sales of Autos at 9130 Olson Memorial Highway - Auto Point Ltd., Applicant Date: September 19, 2001 Auto Point, Ltd. represented by Michael Povolotsky, is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow that the property at 9130 Olson Memorial Highway (OMH) be used for the outdoor sale of 30 late model used and new vehicles. The property is zoned Commercial as is all the property in the narrow strip between Olson Memorial Highway and Golden Valley Road between Decatur Avenue and TH 169. Within that district, outdoor car sales are permitted only with a CUP. This commercially zoned area is also designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map for Commercial uses. The property to the north of this site is zoned M-1 Multiple Family and is the location of the Trentwood Apartments. This property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as High Density Residential. The properties east of the apartments are zoned Commercial, as is their Comprehensive Plan Map designation. The property to the south across TH 55 is zoned M~1 Multiple Family, Residential and Business and Professional Offices. The designation of the Comprehensive Plan is essentially the same as the zoning. The right-of-way for TH 55 at this location is over 100 feet wide. The property is now vacant. It was most recently occupied by.farmers Insurance Group as a claim center. The building was constructed in 1980 or 1981 and is about 5400 sq. ft. in area with two drive-through claim bays. The property is approximately one acre in area with about 200 feet of frontage on both Olson Memorial Highway and Golden Valley Road. The only access to the site is from Golden Valley Road. The existing building meets all setback requirements for the Commercial zoning district. The setback requirements are 35 feet from a street and 20 feet from the side property line for buildings and 10 feet for parking areas or driveways. The site plan illustrates the location of the building. Auto Point does not intend to use the interior of the building for the display of vehicles for sale. The interior would only be used for offices. All vehicles for sale or lease will be displayed outside. The former drive-in claim areas may be used for the storage of one or two cars. Mr. Povolotsky told me that at some time in the future, Auto Point might want to alter the interior of the building to allow for some indoor display of cars. This would require an amended CUP and some alterations to the interior of the building. At the present time, there are 31 parking spaces on the site as indicated on the attached site plan. They would like to add five spaces along the southwest side of the site (next to the dumpster) and in front of the drive-through claims garage to bring the total to 36 spaces. They have told me they would like to display up to 30 cars. With a total of eight employees and the need for five visitor parking spaces, I would recommend that no more than 20 cars be displayed outside at anyone time. This would maintain adequate employee and visitor parking along with maintaining necessary drive aisles. . If Auto Point were permitted to operate, the staff recommends that the CUP limit the business to eight employees due to the limited parking available. Any portion of the building could not be sublet to any other users because of the limited parking. (Normally, a 5400 space building would require about 25 parking spaces to meet parking requirements for office space.) At the present time, the site is well landscaped and the building is in good condition. They plan to use the existing pylon sign that is located along the OMH side of the site. All signage would have to meet the requirements of the sign code. There are no plans for additional lighting of the parking lot. There are now wall lights on the side of the building. If additional lighting were added in the parking lot, they should be turned down after 10 PM in the evening and only lower level security lighting would remain lit. Any lighting plan should have downcast lighting and be approved by the Building Official. No mechanical work or bodywork will occur on the site. e Since there are no changes required to the parking lot or building, there are no water quality requirements for the use of this site by a car dealership. Factors for Consideration In approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten specified factors. Staff evaluations of those factors as they relate to the current proposal are as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market of the proposed good or service. That criterion has been met in this case. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map identifies the proposed site for long-term commercial uses. Car sales, by conditional use, are considered consistent with this land use designation. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Since there are similar property uses in the area and there have recently been car sales in the area (Avis or Hertz sold used cars across the street from Wendy's several years ago without any negative consequences), the CUP . will not have a substantial impact on property values. 2 e 4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and Congestion in the Area: Due to the nature of the proposed car sales, it is not anticipated that a great deal of traffic will be generated from the proposed use. They expect to have 10-20 visitors per day plus the 6-8 employees. (Total trips generated from the site would be less than 100 per day.) The hours of operation will be 9 AM to 7 PM Monday - Thursday, 9 AM to 6 PM Saturday and closed on Sunday. This is less traffic than when the building was used asa drive-through claims office for Farmers Insurance. 5. Effect on any Increase in Population: Because this is a commercial use, the permanent population of Golden Valley will not increase due to the business. There will be an additional 6-8 employees that will add to the City's daytime population. 6. Increase in Noise level: At this time, staff has no reason to expect that noise impacts will extend beyond the site. As stated above, there will be no mechanical or bodywork done on the site. No outside microphone would be permitted on the site. 7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration Caused by the Use: This type of car sales operation is not expected to cause any issues regarding odor, dust, gas or vibration. 8. Any Increase in Flies, Rats, or otherVermin in the Area Caused by the Use: It is not anticipated that this type of car sales will increase any of these pests in the area. 9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: The building or site will not be' changed with the exception of a new pylon sign and other signage that must comply with the City~s sign code. There will be more cars parked or stored in the parking lot as a result of this business. e 10. Other Concerns Regarding the Use: Since there will be no auto repair taking place on the site, the staff does not see any other issues to address. . Recommended Action Staff recommends that the following conditions be made part of any approval of a Conditional Use Permit for car sales at 9130 Olson Memorial Highway: 1. The site be limited to the sale of 20 vehicles and that 15 spaces be designated for employee and customer parking. (See attached site plans that require little or no changes from when it was owned by Farmers Insurance) 2. All signage meets the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. 3. The recommendation of Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in his memo to Dan Olson dated September 10, 2001 become a part of this approval. 4. No display of cars can take place in the building. The two claims bays may be used for the temporary storage of two vehicles. e 5. The Building Official shall approve any additional lighting of the site. Lighting shall be turned down after +e PM. f 3 6. No more than 8 employees shall work at the site due to parking constraints. 7. The hours of operation for the sale of cars shall be limited to 9 AM Monday-Saturday. There shall be no sales of vehicles on Sunday. ~ ~ fr 8. No outside microph6Re shall be permitted on the site. s!, efAj::er'" Attachments: Site Plans Ed Anderson memo dated September 1 0, 2001 Michael Povolotsky Proposed Use Letter e e e 4 . Memorandum To: Dan Olson, City Planner From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: September 10, 2001 Re: Condition Use (Auto Point Ltd) I have reviewed the proposed plan for the Auto Point Ltd. Located at 9130 Olson Highway. Listed below are my plan review comments for the Conditional Use Permit. 1) "No Parking Fire Lanes" signs shall be installed at the main driveway of the building. The installation of the signs and stationary posts shall be in accordance with the Golden Valley City Ordinance and the Golden Valley Fire Department Installation Standards. 2) Fire Department access roads shall be a minimum of20 feet clearance up to the building. 3) No gate or barriers shall be installed in the main driveway of the building e 4) A fire suppression /sprinkler system in rhe building for the storage of motor vehicles. The Fire Suppression/Sprinkler System will be monitor by a central station frre alarm company. Fire extinguishers shall be installed in the building. 5) A Fire Department lock box will be required to be installed on the exterior of the building. If you have any questions please contact me at 763-593-8065 e 1 Attachment to application Section B. 4 e Proposed Conditional Use: Automobile Sales / Brokerage Outdoors Section 11.30 SuM. I Indoors Section 11.30 Sub. 4.N Auto Point, Ltd. proposes to display, sell, and lease late model European automobiles, off lease. We will also lease new domestic and imported vehicles. A total of 6-8 staff is planned: management staff 2 sales, leasing, and finance staff 2 office, administrative and computer staff 2 delivery assistant 1 No mechanical work, bodywork, or similar will take place on the premises at any time. Any preparations are subcontracted to outside vendors. This is a business which will generate approximately 10 - 20 visitors per day. The majority of our business is conducted by phone, Internet and through referrals. Our clients are typically middle aged, family oriented, and middle to upper income. No banners, streamers, or inflatable objects are associated with or appropriate to this type of business and none will be used. e Our hours are expected to be: Monday-Thursday, 9am-7pm; Friday and Saturday, 9am- 6pm. Closed on Sunday. The site will be appealing because the existing building is in impeccable condition. The property has mature trees, well-groomed bushes, and excellent landscaping. Our automobiles will further enhance the property by virtue of their own appeal. We also plan to add indoor fire suppression sprinklers and an indoor display area, following the requisite Fire Marshall approval. Automobile dealers and leasing companies with both indoor and outdoor displays currently exist locally and in all surrounding municipalities. Having operated a similar business in St Louis Park for several years, we recognize and admire the many improvements taking place in Golden Valley. We look forward to becoming a part of this trend. Most of all, we will cooperate with our neighbors and the city of Golden Valley for a long and mutually beneficial relationship. Thank you. e e e e Thibault ASSOCIATES Urban Planning I September 11,2001 Development Redevelopment Housing SUMMARY REPORT ON STRA TEGIC PLANNING SESSION Towers and Antennas Held On July 9, 2001 INTRODUCTION The Strategic Planning Session allowed the Planning Commission, Open Space and Recreation Commission, key staff, and the telecommunication engineer to look at Golden Valley in terms of what each participant: 1) likes, appreciates or finds beneficial about telecommunication towers and antennas in Golden Valley; 2) dislike, not appreciate, find lacking, or consider a defect; and 3) proposes as goals for telecommunications towers and antennas. During the Strategic Planning Session the top two or three selections of each participant were tabulated. This provided a sense of the ranking by the individuals and the group. It also provided context for each step. In the fourth portion of the session, each participant reviewed and ranked provisions for possible inclusion in a new ordinance. This report shows the ranked results after complete tabulation. This information can serve as the framework in preparing a new Tower and Antenna Ordinance for the City. Each of the four parts of the strategic session is covered below. 1. LIKES, APPRECIATES, FINDS BENEFICIAL ABOUT TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS A total of 20 characteristics were offered. Listed below are the characteristics and the tabulated results in ranked order. Ranking What do you Like, Appreciate, or Find Beneficial about Composite Ranking Open Ranking Ranking All Space Ranking R.F Telecommunication Towers and Antennas in Golden Respondents! Planning and Staff Engr. Valley? Groups Comm. Rec. Comm. Safety/Emergency Services 1 1 1 1 6 Many Facilities Co-Located 2 3 4 9 5 Reliable Telephone Communication Towers 3 2 7 3 17 Unobtrusive Locations 4 7 6 2 7 Short Towers & Screened 5 10 3 12 16 Located in Industrial Areas 5 11 5 7 8 Lack of Quantity (Few Towers) 7 12 2 12 15 Height Limits 8 5 13 6 13 Enhances (Broadens) Communications 9 6 11 11 10 Provides Spread of New Technology (e.g. Wireless/e-Mail) 10 15 10 20 9 Integrated with Buildings (e.g. Church Steeples) 11 8 8 16 11 Revenue Source for City (Public) 12 13 18 9 1 Good Reception 13 4 16 17 12 No CUP for Obvious Locations 14 18 14 7 2 Allows for Alternative to Conventional Phones 15 16 15 5 14 Not in Residential Areas or Parks 16 9 12 18 19 Use of MN/DOT Property 17 20 8 14 18 Good Use of Public Land & Facilities 18 17 20 4 3 Provides Income for Hosts/Landowners 19 19 19 14 4 Improves Individual Efficiency/Production 20 14 17 19 20 Brief Analysis: The composite ranking of what is liked the most about these towers and antennas can be summarized as: safety and emergency service achieved by co-locating and located unintusively by virtue of location and height. In general the rankings between planning commission and open space and recreation commission and to some extent staff is very similar. The R.F. engineer 's ranking is quite similar in some areas and significantly dissimilar in afew others. . e e I nlcault ASSOCIATES Urban Planning Development Redevelopment Housing 2. DISLIKE, NOT APPRECIATE, FIND LACKING, OR CONSIDER A DEFECT A total of 32 characteristics were identified. Listed below are the characteristics and the tabulated results in ranked order. Notes: 1) Ties are ranked as the same rank and the following number is skipped. 2) An item not ranked by a participant is given the lowest ranking for that participant. Ranking What Do You Dislike, Not Appreciate, Find Lacking, or Composite Ranking Open Ranking Consider a Defect in Telecommunication Towers and Ranking All Planning Spaee Ranking R.F Antennas in Golden Valley? Respondents! Comm. and Staff Engr. Groups Ree. Comm. Ugly/Blight on Landscape 1 1 2 3 31 The Growing Number Too Many 2 2 1 9 31 CUP Not Required for Obvious Locations 3 4 17 5 31 Planning for the Post-Technology of Antennas (e.g. 4 22 9 1 31 Removal) Lack of Clear City Standards 5 5 18 6 3 Causes Conflict to Deal With in Neighborhood 6 12 15 7 2 Too Dependent on Providers (At Their Mercy) 7 3 16 11 31 Potential Health Risks 8 9 6 11 31 Privacy/Big Brother Aspect 9 11 5 19 31 Lack of Information/Knowledge 10 10 8 17 31 Interference with Reception 11 19 14 4 31 No Attempt to Blend In/No Concealment 12 7 10 21 31 Leases Difficult to Work With/Lack of Responsiveness 13 20 20 2 31 Inadequate Coverage 14 7 21 11 6 Locations in Wetlands and Natural Areas 15 13 11 16 31 Lack of Coordination Among Carriers 16 17 3 22 31 Lack of Standardization of Technology 17 27 4 22 4 Height- Too HighlToo Low/Proportionality 18 6 26 8 31 The Advantage Institutions Get in Residential Areas 19 14 13 22 31 Cell Phones InterruptlCars/Social/Other Functions 20 26 7 22 31 Cost to City 21 24 26 10 7 Different Types of Towers 22 16 19 22 5 Environmental Concerns Impacts (e.g. Birds) 23 27 12 22 31 Can't Be Buried--Must be Above Ground 24 23 23 14 31 Lack of Security Around Towers (e.g. Kids Climbing on, 25 24 22 17 31 etc.) Don't Allow in Obvious Locations (e.g. 26 17 26 14 31 Apartments/Clinics/etc. ) Water Tower Not Being Used as Antenna/PCS 27 25 26 22 1 Radio-TV District Obsolete 28 20 26 20 31 All Different Colors 29 15 26 22 31 Lack of Understanding of Service Needs (e.g. 30 27 26 13 31 Access/Maintenance) Distances Between Towers Too Close 31 21 26 22 31 Adjacent Landowners Don't Receive Income 32 27 23 22 31 Brief Analysis: What is disliked the most can be summarized as: they look ugly, cause blight, there are too many being constructed without clear standards (including removal), without a condition use permit, causing conflict in neighborhoods and being dependant/at the mercy of providers. In general, there is somewhat less agreement among the groups except for the top three items, if the R.F. engineer's rankings are excluded and the low ranking of the CUP item by the Open Space and Recreation Commission (which may be explained by the fact that this group is less familiar with CUP matters). Some other areas where substantial difference in responses exists might be attributed to the different roles. For example, the staff on leases (or leasees) being difficult to work with may be explained by the role and function of staff in this area. Standardization and tech items are another example. 2 e e e I nlcaUlt ASSOCIATES Urban Planning Development Redevelopment Housing 3. GOALS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS A total of 30 goals were offered. Listed below are the suggested goals and the tabulated results in ranked order. Ranking Composite Ranking Open Ranking Goals for Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Ranking All Planning Spaee Ranking R.F Respondents! Comm. and Staff Engr. Groups Ree. Comm. Control Locations and Design 1 1 1 11 18 Make Provider Prove Need 2 2 2 5 1 Co-Locate and Limit Proliferation 3 13 5 3 2 Require Proof That Existing Facility Can't Be Used 4 15 3 1 30 Setback Requirements From Prohibited Areas 5 5 3 18 5 Clear Purpose 6 4 18 2 11 Provide Effective Service With Least Adverse Impact 7 6 10 11 19 Better and More Complete Information from Applicant and 8 3 14 14 8 standardized Define Where Towers Are Permitted 9 23 7 8 10 Provide Balanced Coverage to City 10 9 21 4 30 Encourage/Provide for Locating on Existing 11 11 20 9 4 BuildinQs/Structures Provision for Abandonment/Removal of Towers 12 25 6 10 30 Determine Long-Term City Needs for Digital Technology 13 18 19 6 12 Prohibit in Parks and Residential 14 8 8 22 30 Keep It Simple for Public and Providers 15 19 9 22 6 Provide for Agreement on Basic Requirements (e.g. Bond) 16 7 27 7 30 Have Remedies for Problems to Deal With 17 20 17 14 9 Costs Paid by Providers 17 21 11 22 16 Regulate Size and Location of Satellite Dishes and 19 16 16 22 3 Antennas Security Issues 20 17 14 18 30 Protect Residents' Health 21 27 12 13 13 Prohibit Advertising On Towers 22 10 27 14 7 Specified Maintenance Scheduling 23 12 24 22 17 Requirement for Landscaping 24 24 12 22 30 Control Lighting 25 22 22 16 30 Control Number of Towers in a Given Area 26 14 27 18 15 Application Reviewed by a Neutral Third Party 27 26 23 16 30 Appeal(er) Escape 28 27 27 21 14 Regulate Change of Towers 29 27 25 22 30 Investment Parallels Actual Need 30 27 26 22 30 Brief Analysis: The goal can be summarized as: Having an ordinance with a clear purpose strictly controlling locations and design to have the least adverse impact and requiring a demonstrated need and co-locatingfacilities. Top ranked goals are consistent with the likes and dislikes. Fairly good agreement among the groups but some notable exceptions "co-locate and limit proliftration" and "require proof existingfacilities can't be used" were not ranked high by the Planning Commission. Some difference can be explained by the role of staff and R.F. engineer. 3 I nlDault ASSOCIATES Urban Planning Development Redevelopment Housing . 4. POSSffiLE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS The fourth and last segment of the strategic process involved each participant expressing the participant's feeling about including or not including possible provisions in a new telecommunication ordinance. Tabulated results are attached and consist of the following tabulations. 1. Composite (Overall) Tabulation (this includes all the participants/groups) 2. Planning Commission Tabulation 3. Open Space and Recreation Commission Tabulation 4. Staff Tabulation 5. R.F. Engineer Tabulation Tabulated results are shown as a percent based on the response to the individual question. Not all respondents answered all the questions. e Brief Analysis: Key points are the following; · There is very strong support for inclusion of almost all of the topics/provisions contained in the survey. · Of the 61 topics 30 were strongly encouraged or somewhat encouraged by an 80% or more of the respondents. Some of the most strongly encouraged are. 1. Co-locating 2. Documenting need 12. Strict controls for removal 16. Strict control of illumination 17. Strict control of sign age 36. Preference for a single unified ordinance 37. Ordinance tailored to Golden Valley 38. Simplified ordinance 39. Showing antennas cannot be located on an existing structure · Almost nothing was strongly discouraged. The items receiving 20% or more for strongly discouraged: 8. Limit the height to less than 200 ft. in most instances (This height is evidently too high based on the response to 5,6, and 7.) 42. Allow for administrative approval with little or no use of conditional use permits 61. Predetermining location · Topics which had a relatively large neutral response labeled "Neither encourage nor discourage inclusion" in some cases might reflect the respondent did not know enough about the topic to allow a reasonable alternative or the complexity of the item was such that a different response could not be made. Or this could suggest that details in the provision will be important to reflect the desires of the community as reflected through the respondents. Examples include height, separation of towers, requiring monopole design, guy wires, temporary towers, use of high voltage towers, elimination of the radio and television district, using public property, administrative approval, allowing towers in industrial district out-right, placement on edges of buildings and the height on buildings, distance from residential districts, and restrictions on major routes e.g. Highway 55, 100, 169, and 1394. CONCLUSION The total participation at the strategic session and the careful consideration participants gave during the ranking implies a dedicated interest and a high level of concern about telecommunications towers and antennas. The vast and detailed amount of information collected is extremely valuable (useful) in preparing a new ordinance tailored specifically to the needs and desires of Golden Valley as expressed by the participants in this process. The information obtained from this two-hour session would have been almost impossible to obtain in any other way even if 10 times the hours had been spent on this matter. The information and tabulated results indicate a comprehensive ordinance will be necessary to meet the desires and needs of Golden Valley. e 4 . . . :rhe percentages shown below are composite percentages from the responses of all participants. Composite (Overall) Tabulation Please indicate your feelings Neither regarding inclusion of the Strongly Somewhat Encourage nO! Strongly Strongly following provisions in the new Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion telecommunications ordinance. Inclusion 1. Require co-locating facilities 1 86% 0 7% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2. Require documentation of need 2 93% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3. Include strict setback requirement 3 64% 0 14% 0 22% 0 0% 0 0% 0 4. Include strict height requirement 4 64% 0 22% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 5. Limit tbe height to less tban 100 ft. in most instances 5 17% 0 42% 0 25% 0 8% 0 8% 0 6. Limit tbe height to less tban 120 ft. in most instances 6 23% 0 46% 0 15% 0 8% 0 8% 0 7. Limit tbe height to less tban 150ft. in most instances 7 33% 0 17% 0 17% 0 17% 0 16% 0 8. Limit tbe height to less tban 200 ft. in most instances 8 33% 0 17% 0 8% 0 17% 0 25% 0 9. Offer an extended height limit when more tban 2 8% facilities on a tower 9 0 50% 0 17% 0 8% 0 17% 0 1O.SpecifY separation of towers (minimum distance 10 47% 0 20% 0 26% 0 0% 0 7% 0 between towers) 11.Require strict structural standards II 73% 0 27% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 l2.Require strict controls on removal 12 86% 0 7% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 13.Require colors to blend witb environment 13 53% 0 33% 0 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 14.Require strict landscaping 14 53% 0 33% 0 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 l5.Set up a preference system for where towers should 15 73% 0 7% 0 14% 0 0% 0 6% 0 be located l6.Include strict control of illumination 16 86% 0 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 l7.Include strict control of signage 17 86% 0 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 18.Require security fence 18 72% 0 7% 0 14% 0 7% 0 0% 0 19.Require security (protection) oftbe site 19 47% 0 27% 0 13% 0 13% 0 0% 0 20.Require architectural control for any building or 20 60% 0 27% 0 7% 0 6% 0 0% 0 structure or the ground 21.Require screening 21 47% 0 53% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 22.Encourage use of sites where natural screening exists 22 53% 0 33% 0 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3.Require location and configuration of towers to have 23 53% 0 33% 0 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 a minimal visual impact 24.Include defmitions related to towers and facilities 24 67% 0 26% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25.Prohibit towers in front yards 25 73% 0 20% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 26.Include strict maintenance requirements 26 86% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 7% 0 27.At tbe time of application, require applicants to 27 53% 0 27% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 have an approved federal or state license, if required 28.Include strict provision dealing witb employees and 28 23% 0 46% 0 31% 0 0% 0 0% 0 parking e.g. none if in one oftbe more restrictive districts 29.Allow antennas (but not towers) as an accessory use 29 43% 0 36% 0 14% 0 7% 0 0% 0 30.Require towers to be of a monopole design 30 20% 0 20% 0 33% 0 20% 0 7% 0 31. Prohibit tbe use of guy wires in new towers Sl 36% 0 14% 0 36% 0 14% 0 0% 0 32.Include provisions for temporary or mobile towers 32 23% 0 23% 0 31% 0 8% 0 15% 0 more tban 2 feet in diameter 33. Strictly control satellite (dish) antennas which 33 0 22% 0 14% 0 0% 0 7% 0 are more tban 2 feet in diameter 57% 34.Consider allowing antennas on city street lights, 34 33% 0 40% 0 20% 0 7% 0 0% 0 park lights, and similar structures 35.Encourage use of high voltage towers for antennas 35 46% 0 27% 0 27% 0 0% 0 0% 0 I . e e The percentages shown below are composite percentages from the responses of all participants. Composite (Overall) Tabulation Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Encourage not Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion 36.Preference for a single unified ordinance rather than 36 86% 0 7% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 integration of the various parts into the various districts 37.Carefullytailorthe ordinance to meet 37 86% 0 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Valley's needs and desires 38.Simplified ordinance instead of a complex one 38 53% 0 40% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 39.Eliminate the Radio and Television Zoning district 39 39% 0 15% 0 46% 0 0% 0 0% 0 40.Encourage towers to be located on public property 40 22% 0 14% 0 50% 0 14% 0 0% 0 41.Require a conditional use permit for most towers 41 60% 0 20% 0 13% 0 7% 0 0% 0 42.Allow for administrative approval with little or no 42 14% 0 7% 0 33% 0 13% 0 33% 0 use of conditional use permits 43.Require all new facilities to be designed to 43 79% 0 21% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accommodate at least 2 antenna arrays/systems 44.Require all new facilities to be designed to 44 71% 0 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accommodate at least 3 antenna arrays/systems 45.Allow towers/antennas in the Industrial District 45 20% 0 40% 0 13% 0 7% 0 20% 0 "out-right" (allow as a permitted use) 46.Allow tower/antennas in the Industrial District only 46 36% 0 29% 0 29% 0 7% 0 0% 0 by a conditional use permit 47.Promote use of existing structures 47 73% 0 27% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 48.Require a showing that the antenna can not be 48 93% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 located on an existing structure in the area 49.Require antennas on building to be set back at least 49 27% 0 20% 0 53% 0 0% 0 0% 0 10-15 feet off the edge of the building 50.Limit the height of an antenna on top of a building 50 7% 0 22% 0 64% 0 0% 0 0% 0 to 10-15 feet 51.Require a capacity analysis on need for a tower 51 67% 0 27% 0 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 52.Prohibit towers in residential zones unless on public 52 57% 0 36% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 property 53.Prohibit or discourage towers within 500-1000 ft. 53 40% 0 27% 0 27% 0 6% 0 0% 0 of a residential district except when on public facilities 54.Encourage the use of light poles and similar 54 73% 0 27% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 structures in state right-of -way to be used as towers 55.Encourage the use of state highway right-of-way 55 73% 0 20% 0 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 for new towers 56.Apply strict provisions to protect the image of 56 43% 0 36% 0 21% 0 0% 0 0% 0 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 57 36% 0 7% 0 29% 0 14% 0 14% 0 58.Highway 100 58 36% 0 14% 0 22% 0 14% 0 14% 0 59.Highway 55 59 43% 0 7% 0 22% 0 14% 0 14% 0 60.Highway 169 60 36% 0 7% 0 29% 0 14% 0 14% 0 61. Should the ordinance predetermine locations where 161 40% 0 7% 0 26% 0 7% 0 20% 0 towers should be located 2 e e e Tabulation Planning Commission Only Please indicate your feelings Neither regarding inclusion of the Strongly Somewhat Encourage nor Somewhat Strongly Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage following provisions in the new Inclusion Inclusion Discourage Inclusion Inclusion telecomm unications ordinance. Inclusion I. Require co-locating facilities 1 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2. Require documentation of need 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3. Include strict setback requirement 3 33% 0 33% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 4. Include strict height requirement 4 33% 0 66% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 5. Limit the height to less than 100 ft. in most instances 5 33% 0 22% 0 0% 0 33% 0 0% 0 6. Limit the height to less than 120 ft. in most instances 6 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 7. Limit the height to less than 150 ft. inmost instances 7 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 66% 0 0% 0 8. Limit the height to less than 200 ft. in most instances 8 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 66% 0 0% 0 9. Offer an extended height limit when more than 2 9 0% 0 75% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25% 0 IO.SpecifY separation of towers (minimum distance 10 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 between towers) II.Require strict structural standards 11 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 12.Require strict controls on removal 12 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 13.Require colors to blend with enviromnent 13 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 14.Require strict landscaping 14 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 15.Set up a preference system for where towers should 15 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 be located 16.Include strict control of illumination 16 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 17.Include strict control of signage 17 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 18.Require security fence 18 33% 0 0% 0 33% 0 33% 0 0% 0 19.Require security (protection) of the site 19 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 50% 0 0% 0 20.Require architectural control for any building or 20 50% 0 25% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 structure or the ground 21.Require screening 21 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 "2.Encourage use of sites where natural screening exists 22 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 23.Require location and configuration oftowers to have 23 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 a minimal visual impact 24.Include defmitions related to towers and facilities 24 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25.Prohibit towers in front yards 25 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 26.Include strict maintenance requirements 26 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 27.At the time of application, require applicants to 27 50% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 have an approved federal or state license, if required 28.Include strict provision dealing with employees and 28 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 parking e. g. none if in one of the more restrictive districts 29.Allow antennas (but not towers) as an accessory use 29 25% 0 25% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 30.Require towers to be of a monopole design 30 0% 0 25% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 31. Prohibit the use of guy wires in new towers 31 25% 0 0% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 32.Include provisions for temporary or mobile towers 32 0% 0 0% 0 66% 0 33% 0 0% 0 more than 2 feet in diameter 33. Strictly control satellite (dish) antennas which 33 0 66% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 are more than 2 feet in diameter 33% 34.Consider allowing antennas on city street lights, 34 25% 0 50% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 park lights, and similar structures 35.Encourage USe of high voltage towers for antennas 35 50% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 . e e Tabulation Planning Commission Only Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Encourage Encourage Encourage nOI Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion 36.Preference for a single unified ordinance rather than 36 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 integration of the various parts into the various districts 37.Carefullytailor the ordinance to meet 37 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Valley's needs and desires 38.Simplified ordinance instead of a complex one 38 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 39.ElinIinate the Radio and Television Zoning district 39 33% 0 33% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 40.Encourage towers to be located on public property 40 25% 0 0% 0 50% 0 25% 0 0% 0 41.Require a conditional use permit for most towers 41 50% 0 25% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 42. AUow for administrative approval with little or no 42 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25% 0 50% 0 use of conditional use permits 43.Require all new facilities to be designed to 43 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accommodate at least 2 antenna arrays/systems 44.Require all new facilities to be designed to 44 66% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accoIl1ll1odate at least 3 antenna arrays/systems 45.Allow towers/antennas in the Industrial District 45 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 50% 0 "out-right" (allow as a permitted use) 46.Allow tower/antennas in the Industrial District only 46 33% 0 33% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 by a conditional use permit 47.Promote use of existing structures 47 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 48.Require a showing that the antenna can not be ~8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 located on an existing structure in the area 49.Require antennas on building to be set back at least 49 25% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 10-15 feet off the edge of the building 50.Limit the height of an antenna on top of a building 50 0% 0 33% 0 66% 0 0% 0 0% 0 to 10-15 feet 51.Require a capacity analysis on need for a tower 51 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 52.Prohibit towers in residential zones unless on public 52 66% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 property 53.Prohibit or discourage towers within 500-1000 ft. 53 50% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 of a residential district except when on public facilities 54.Encourage the use of light poles and siInilar 54 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 structures in state right-of -way to be used as towers 55 .Encourage the use of state highway right-of-way 55 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 for new towers 56. Apply strict provisions to protect the inIage of 56 0% 0 66% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 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 57 0% 0 0% 0 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 58.Highway 100 58 0% 0 25% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 59.Highway 55 59 25% 0 0% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 60.Highway 169 60 0% 0 0% 0 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 61. Should the ordinance predeterInine locations where 61 25% 0 0% 0 25% 0 25% 0 25% 0 towers should be located 2 . . e Tabulation P::If (~ r ion Onl Please indicate your feelings Neither regarding inclusion of the Strongly Somewhat Encourage nor Somewhat Strongly following provisions in the new Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion telecommunications ordinance. Inclusion 1. Require co-locating facilities I 83% 0 0% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2. Require documentation of need 2 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3. Include strict setback requirement 3 83% 0 0% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 4. Include strict height requirement 4 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 5. Limit the height to less than 100 ft. in most instances 5 0% 0 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 6. Limit the height to less than 120 ft. in most instances 6 25% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 7. Limit the height to less than 150 ft. inmost instances 7 25% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 8. Limit the height to less than 200 ft. in most instances 8 50% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 9. Offer an extended height limit when more than 2 9 0% 0 25% 0 40% 0 20% 0 20% 0 acilities on a tower IO.Specity separation of towers (minimum distance 10 66% 0 0% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 between towers) l1.Require strict structural standards 11 66% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 12.Require strict controls on removal 12 66% 0 17% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 13.Require colors to blend with environment 13 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 14.Require strict landscaping 14 33% 0 66% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 15.Set up a preference system for where towers should 15 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 be located 16.Include strict control of illumination 16 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 17.Include strict control of signage 17 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 18.Require security fence 18 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 19.Require security (protection) of the site 19 50% 0 33% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 20.Require architectural control for any building or 20 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 structure or the ground 21.Require screening 21 17% 0 83% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 22.Encourage use of sites where natural screening exists 22 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 23.Require location and configuration of towers to have 23 50% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 a minimal visual impact 24.Include definitions related to towers and facilities 24 33% 0 50% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25 .Prohibit towers in front yards 25 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 26.Include stri,,'t maintenance requirements 26 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 27.At the time of application, require applicants to 27 83% 0 0% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 have an approved federal or state license, if required 28.Include strict provision dealing with employees and 28 33% 0 17% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 parking e. g. none if in one of the more restrictive districts 29.A1low antennas (but not towers) as an accessory use 29 60% 0 20% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 30.Require towers to be of a monopole design 30 33% 0 17% 0 33% 0 17% 0 0% 0 31. Prohibit the use of guy wires in new towers 31 40% 0 40% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 32.Include provisions for temporary or mobile towers 32 33% 0 17% 0 17% 0 0% 0 33% 0 more than 2 feet in diameter 33. Strictly control satellite (dish) antennas which 33 50% 0 0% 0 33% 0 0% 0 17% 0 are more than 2 feet in diameter 34.Consider allowing antennas on city street lights, 34 17% 0 50% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 park lights, and similar structures 35.Encourage use of high voltage towers for antennas 35 66% 0 17% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 e e . Tabulation n. :-;rl Onl i'11 Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Encourage not Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion 36.Preference for a single unified ordinance rather than 36 66% 0 17% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 integration ofthe various parts into the various districts 37.Carefully tailor the ordinance to meet 37 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Valley's needs and desires 38.Simplified ordinance instead of a complex one 138 50% 0 33% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 39.Eliminate the Radio and Television Zoning district 39 0% 0 20% 0 80% 0 0% 0 0% 0 40.Encourage towers to be located on public property 40 20% 0 40% 0 20% 0 20% 0 0% 0 41.Require a conditional use permit for most towers 41 66% 0 17% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 42.Allow for administrative approval with little or no 42 17% 0 0% 0 50% 0 0% 0 33% 0 use of conditional use permits 43.Require all new facilities to be designed to 43 60% 0 40% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accommodate at least 2 antenna arrays/systems 44.Require all new facilities to be designed to 44 50% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accommodate at least 3 antenna arrays/systems 45.Allow towers/antennas in the Industrial District 45 17% 0 50% 0 17% 0 0% 0 17% 0 "out-right" (allow as a permitted use) 46. Allow tower/antennas in the Industrial District only 46 50% 0 17% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 by a conditional use permit 47.Promote use of existing structures k7 66% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 48.Require a showing that the antenna can not be 48 80% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 located on an existing structure in the area 49.Require antennas on building to be set back at least 49 33% 0 33% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 10-15 feet off the edge of the building 50.Limit the height of an antenna on top of a building 50 0% 0 17% 0 83% 0 0% 0 0% 0 to 10-15 feet 51.Require a capacity analysis on need for a tower 51 50% 0 33% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 52.Prohibit towers in residential zones unless on public 52 66% 0 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 property 53.Prohibit or discourage towers within 500-1000 ft. 53 66% 0 17% 0 0% 0 17% 0 0% 0 of a residential district except when on public facilities 54.Encourage the use oflight poles and similar 54 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 structures in state right-of -way to be used as towers 55 .Encourage the use of state highway right-of-way 55 83% 0 0% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 for new towers 56. Apply strict provisions to protect the image of 56 83% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 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 57 60% 0 20% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 58.Highway 100 58 60% 0 20% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 59.Highway 55 59 60% 0 20% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 60.Highway 169 60 60% 0 20% 0 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 6 1. Should the ordinance predetermine locations where 61 66% 0 17% 0 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 towers should be located 2 e . 4 ~ Tabulation Staff Only Please indicate your feelings Neither regarding inclusion of the Strongly Somewhat Encourage nor Somewhat Strongly following provisions in the new Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion telecommunications ordinance. Inclusion 1. Require co-locating facilities 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2. Require documentation of need 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3. Include strict setback requirement 3 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 4. Include strict height requirement 4 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 5. Limit the height to less than 100 ft. in most instances 5 25% 0 50% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 6. Limit the height to less than 120 ft. in most instances 6 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25% 0 7. Limit the height to less than 150 ft. in most instances 7 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 50% 0 8. Limit the height to less than 200 ft. in most instances 8 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 50% 0 9. Offer an extended height limit when more than 2 9 0% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25% 0 facilities on a tower 1O.SpecifY separation of towers (minimum distance 10 25% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 between towers) II.Require strict structural standards 11 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 12.Require strict controls on removal 12 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 13.Require colors to blend with environment 13 25% 0 50% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 14.Require strict landscaping 14 75% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 15.Set up a preference system for where towers should 15 50% 0 0% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 be located 16.Include ~1rict control of illumination 16 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 17.Include strict control of signage 17 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 18.Require security fence 18 75% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 19.Require security (protection) of the site 19 75% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 20.Require architectural control for any building or 20 75% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 structure or the ground 21.Require screening 21 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 22.Encourage use of sites where natural screening exists 22 50% 0 0% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 23.Require location and configuration of towers to have 23 50% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 a minimal visual impact 24.Include defmitions related to towers and facilities 24 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25 .Prohibit towers in front yards 25 75% 0 0% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 26.Include strict maintenance requirements 26 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 27.At the time of application, require applicants to 27 25% 0 50% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 have an approved federal or state license, if required 28.Include strict provision dealing with employees and 28 25% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 parking e.g. none if in one of the more restrictive districts 29.Allow antennas (but not towers) as an accessory use 29 25% 0 75% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 30.Require towers to be of a monopole design 0 0% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 25% 0 31. Prohibit the use of guy wires in new towers 31 25% 0 0% 0 75% 0 0% 0 0% 0 32.Include provisions for temporary or mobile towers 32 25% 0 25% 0 25% 0 0% 0 25% 0 more than 2 feet in diameter 33. Strictly control satellite (dish) antennas which 33 75% 0 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 are more than 2 feet in diameter 34.Consider allowing antennas on city street lights, 34 75% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2S% 0 0% 0 park lights, and similar structures 35.Encourage use of high voltage towers for antennas bs 25% 0 25% 0 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 e ngmeer 0 Please indicate your feelings Neither regarding inclusion of the Strongly Somewhat Encourage nO! Somewhat Strongly Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage following provisions in the new Inclusion Inclusion Discourage Inclusion Inclusion telecommunications ordinance. Inclusion 1. Require co-locating facilities 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 2. Require documentation of need 2 100% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 3. Include strict setback requirement 3 0% 0 100% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 4. Include strict height requirement 4 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 5. Limit the height to less than 100 ft. in most instances 5 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 6. Limit the height to less than 120 ft. in most instances 6 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 f1. Limit the height to less than 150 it. inmost instances 7 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 8. Limit the height to less than 200 ft. in most instances 8 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 9. Offer an extended height limit when more than 2 9 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 facilities on a tower IO.Specify separation oftowers (minimum distance 10 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 betWeen towers) II.Require strict structural standards 11 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 12.Require strict controls on removal 12 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 13.Require colors to blend with environment 13 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 14.Require strict landscaping 14 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 15 .Set up a preference system for where towers should 15 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 be located 16.Include strict control of illumination 16 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 17.Include strict control of signage 17 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 18.Require security fence 18 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 19.Require security (protection) of the site 19 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 20.Require architectural control for any building or 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 structure or the ground 2I.Require screening 21 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 22.Encourage use of sites where natural screening exists 22 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 23.Require location and confignration of towers to have 23 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 a minimal visual impact 24.Include definitions related to towers and facilities 24 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 25 .Prohibit towers in front yards 25 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 26.Include strict maintenance requirements 26 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 27.At the time of application, require applicants to 27 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 have an approved federal or state license, if required 28.Include strict provision dealing with employees and 28 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 parking e.g. none if in one of the more restrictive districts 29.Allow antennas (but not towers) as an accessory use 29 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 30.Require towers to be of a monopole design 30 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 31. Prohibit the use of guy wires in new towers 31 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 32.Include provisions for temporary or mobile towers 32 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 more than 2 feet in diameter 33. Strictly control satellite (dish) antennas which 33 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 are more than 2 feet in diameter 34.Consider allowing antennas on city street lights, 34 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 park lights, and similar structures 35.Encourage use of high voltage towers for antennas 35 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Tabulation E nl e e 1 e n ~llleer 0 1 Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Encourage no Encourage Encourage Discourage Discourage Discourage Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion 36.Preference for a single unified ordinance rather than b6 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 integration of the various parts into the various districts 37.Carefullytailorthe ordinance to meet 37 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Valley's needs and desires 38.Simplified ordinance instead of a complex one 38 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 39 .Eliminate the Radio and Television Zoning district 39 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 40.Encourage towers to be located on public property 40 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 41.Require a conditional use permit for most towers 41 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 42.Allow for administrative approval with little or no 42 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 use of conditional use permits 43.Require all new facilities to be designed to 43 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accommodate at least 2 antenna arrays/systems 44.Require all new facilities to be designed to 44 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 accommodate at least 3 antenna arrays/systems 45 .Allow towers/antennas in the Industrial District 45 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 "out-right" (allow as a permitted use) 46.Allow tower/antennas in the Industrial District only k6 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 by a conditional use permit 47.Promote use of existing structures 47 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 48.Require a showing that the antenna can not be k8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 located on an existing structure in the area 49.Require antennas on building to be set back at least 49 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 10-15 feet off the edge of the building 50.Limit the height of an antenna on top of a building 50 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 to 10-15 feet 51.Require a capacity analysis on need for a tower 51 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 52.Prohibit towers in residential zones unless on public 52 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 property 53.Prohibit or discourage towers within 500-1000 ft. 53 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 of a residential district except when on public facilities 54.Encourage the use oflight poles and similar 54 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 structures in state right-of -way to be used as towers 5 5.Encourage the use of state highway right-of-way 55 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 for new towers 56.Apply strict provisions to protect the image of 56 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 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 lIntenna or a light pole would be allowed): 57.1-394 57 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 58.Highway 100 58 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 59.Highway 55 59 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 60.Highway 169 60 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 61.Should the ordinance predetermine locations where 61 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 0 towers should be located Tabulation E n1 . . 2