The URL can be used to link to this page

01-25-10 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, January 25, 2010 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes a. January 11, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 7575 Golden Valley Road - CU-126 a. Applicant: Starboard Media Foundation Inc. b. Address: 7575 Golden Valley Road c. Purpose: To allow the applicant to place two satellite dishes on the roof in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment #1 - 9400 Golden Valley Road - CU-121 a. Applicant: RHT Office, LLC b. Address: 9400 Golden Valley Road c. Purpose: To allow the existing employee only daycare to accommodate up to 20 children rather than the approved 10 children in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision -100 Brunswick Avenue North - SU12-12 a. Applicant: Peter Miller b. Address: 100 Brunswick Avenue North c. Purpose: The subdivision would create two separate lots for the construction of two new homes. (The existing home will be removed.) 5. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Garden Structure Requirements in the Definitions, Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning Districts Sections of City Code a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley b. Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family and R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning Districts regarding the addition of garden structure requirements 6. Short Recess 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TIY: 763-593.3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 11, 2010 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January 11, 2010. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Eck, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, ner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissione hka and McCarty were absent. November 9, 2009 Joint Planning Commission! "need" should be 1. Approval of Minutes Eck referred to the last sentence on page two and stated changed to "needs". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhause November 9, 2009 minutes with the ab 'on carri~d unanimously to approve the Eck referred to the last sente the word "from". stated the word "to" should be changed to MOVED by Eck, second November 23, 2009 . Idhaus r and motion carried unanimously to approve the the above noted correction. 2. Conditional Use Permit Amendment #1 - South - CU-95 katepark, Mark Muller Florida Avenue South . To allow for the existing skate park to be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a or special events Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to amend their existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow them to be open 24 hours a day for special events and to reduce their required number of parking spaces from 50 spaces to 5 spaces in the summer and 25 spaces in the winter. He referred to Police Chief Altonen's memo included in the agenda packet and discussed some of her concerns regarding crowd control and safety. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 2 He stated that in regard to the request for fewer parking spaces planning staff realizes that the current requirement of 50 spaces may be too much, so staff is recommending the applicant have 25 parking spaces available year-round. He referred to his memo and discussed the recommended conditions of approval which include: providing a screened dumpster, complying with the American with Disabilities Act by providing adequate handicapped-accessible parking and providing 25 striped parking spaces. Keysser asked how many parking spaces the applicant has currently. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure but he doesn't think they have the 50 spaces they are requir ave. Keysser asked if the applicant meets the conditions in their current 0 Department requirements. Hogeboom said they are not in comp ce COP and he thinks there have been on-going issues with the requirements. Eck referred to a site plan of the property and asked fOfclarific ing the number of parking spaces shown on the plan. Grimes explai d fl1atin pas, the applicant's demand for parking has decreased in the summ He stated that there have been various issues regarding outdoor storage, parki nd the overnight events being held without permission, and that the applicant h d to address these issues. Eck asked if there have ever been the r property. Grimes said yes, originall r board ramps have taken over se o e ed parking spaces on this p~~king spaces and that over time skate king spaces. Mark Muller, Applicant, intr He referred to the Deput memo have been met. H issues are being m He Fire Marshal, Ed An posted, wh ich is siness partners Matt Parrish and Mark Rodriguez. memo and stated that all of conditions listed in his a h as had a code analysis done and life safety d that their total occupancy load is 494 and that Deputy each separate area to have occupancy load signs fhis business and stated that they are proud of their history, their nvironment and how their presence has added to Golden Valley. er the ast few years their admissions have been lower so their special ers" have become increasingly important. He stated that they have hters" approximately 6 to 8 times per year for 13 years. He explained Iy 50 to 75 kids attend the "all-nighters". The kids are dropped off by their parents a e doors are locked so the kids cannot come and go as they please, however parents are allowed to pick their child up during the night if they wish. Schmidgall asked when the "all-nighters" occur. Muller stated they occur on Saturday nights starting at 9 pm and ending at 7 am on Sunday mornings. He stated that they occasionally have parents that stay with their children or volunteer at the events. He noted that a new form of revenue for them has been to rent out their facility for industry events and photo shoots. He said he understands that they need better safety implemented but they are proud of their safety record. He added that he would like to have a minimum of 20 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 3 "all-nighters" per year. Muller referred to Police Chief Altonen's memo and stated that he thinks she is misinformed and doesn't seem to understand that these events are for kids, are completely staffed and are drug and alcohol free. Schmidgall asked Muller if he would have any objection to giving the Police Chief 30 days notice of the all night events. Muller said he would have no objection to giving her notification and in fact she currently receives notification of the "all-nighters". He explained that the all night events are planned months in advance and are posted on the 3rd Lair website and sent to a bulk emaillist. Eck said he doesn't see anything in the existing CUP that gives th nt per~ission to have the all night events. Muller stated that the all night events part .~f his business plan since the beginning and it is his understanding have the all night events. Keysser noted that the CUP is very clear a allow and that the issues in the Police Chiefs memo are valid concerns tha nificant risk. Grimes explained that staff heard about an all night e t held ber and that the applicant was allowed to have his special event tha midg II noted that that if the applicant has been having the all night event md\l 0 his Golden Valley location that means there have been 40 to 50 e is poiht. Muller agreed that some of the Police Chief's concerns are valid hat it was his understanding that he could hold the all night events as./h k asked Muller where he got his understanding that he could have al~!Ipight ~\lents. r reiterated that the all night events have always been a part of . sJJla~.Grimes explained that the all night events may have been part of th siness plan, but they have never been a part of the Conditional Use Per Keysser referred to Dep address them one by one. Ed Anderson's concerns and asked Muller to eferr to Anderson's first comment regarding an d explained that they had a code analysis done in 2002. nd comment regarding outdoor occupancy and ent and he will address the issue. Muller referred to e Cling egress and explained that egress issues were al Conditional Use Permit was obtained and that no egresses or all. Muller referred to Anderson's fourth and fifth comments reg ations and annual fire alarm and fire suppression system ed that Anderson receives annual reports as requested. Muller referred btaming a food license and explained that he receives a temporary special e every time he has an event and he is not required to have a permanent occupancy capacity Muller referred to A Muller stated that life safety issues are his number one issue. He discussed the safety procedures followed during his all night events including requiring waiver forms, safety gear and emergency contact information for every child. Schmidgall asked about the age of the children at the all night events. Muller stated that the average age child at an "all-nighter" is 8 to 12 years old. He added that if the child is younger the parents typically stay at the event with them. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 4 Muller referred to his proposal regarding the reduction of parking spaces. He stated that over the last 7 years the designated parking spaces have decreased in response to their customer's needs. He said that during past summer months there would be kids skating in the parking lot which wasn't safe so they determined the safest and best use would be to turn some of the existing unused parking spaces into an attraction and an area for more outdoor skating space. He explained that there is an agreement with the City in place that allows Golden Valley residents to use the outdoor skating area free of charge during the summer months. Keysser asked if there was permission granted by the City to take aw existing parking spaces. Muller said no and added that the outdoor skating .ar d due to the result of kids dragging the ramps into the parking areas and .kids wa te outside during the summer. He stated that he doesn't want to change the skating area back into parking spaces because it is a benefit to theirl.~usiness and to olden Valley. He added that he has talked to the neighboring prope owner to east about renting some of their parking spaces if they are neede r re d. E id he doesn't understand why the applicant needs to rent parking t he asking to reduce the required amount of parking spaces. Mark Ro siness partner, explained that they would only need to rent parkirng spac or large events and if the City requires them to have 25 parking spaces al ng as 0 osed to having 5 spaces in the summer and 25 spaces in the winter Sc idgall questioned how the parking requirements went from 50 sp rimes explained that there were no parking requirements in place re use when it was originally approved and 50 spaces seemed reasona He stated that 25 spaces seem to be working well and he feels 25 ye >~paces now seem reasonable. e I oncerned about the location and screening of the dumpster, the king spaces being blocked with picnic tables and about there being ergency vehicles to access the site with the way cars have been d that he has spoken with the applicant in the past about these issues and he woul em to be addressed. Schmidgall asked if there are handicapped parking signs posted. Muller said yes. by the property owner to the north. Muller said to n a ne towed from the parking lot to the north. He in that lot that say "No 3rd Lair parking". Rodriguez stated roperty to the north occur when there are events at 3rd 'r customers, and make announcements at their events, they should not park in the lot to the north. Muller said he ner to the north should tow cars if they are parking in his lot. Schmidgall referred to th his knowledge there has stated that there ar i ns that he thinks the is Lair. He explai d th letting custom agrees th Keysser suggested that the applicants have a meeting with staff to discuss the issues that have been raised. Muller stated that he has spoken with the Deputy Fire Marshal, but that the Police Chief has not agreed to meet with them. Hogeboom said he would work on getting a meeting set up. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 5 Muller showed the Commissioners some video clips of a previous "all-nighter". Waldhauser asked if the likelihood of injuries goes up when the kids are up all night skating. Rodriguez said no, there haven't been more injuries during the all night events. Keysser opened the public hearing. Mark Rodriquez stated that he has skated at 3rd Lair since 1997. He said he appreciates the Planning Commission listening to their proposal and he understand that some rules have been broken based on their ignorance but he hopes the City will s.~t they do as beneficial because most property owners don't want skateboarders d in~rt eir property. He stated that the impact of their business on these kids' and hopes the City understands that. He added that they do their best to ke h ps ntained and that their skate park is one of the best in the state. He ad ey are ng to do everything they can to satisfy any issues or concerns. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment,K.~ysser Eck stated he thinks the applicants provide a se~ice a re og to do a good job but it seems that there are enough issues with this proposal th he would like to have police and fire representation at a meeting or at least ve sornethingin writing from them because Mr. Muller has said that he has met the dfir~requirements. boilerplate issues or genuine ing Commission doesn't typically look e conditions in their permits but she thinks alley for this particular age group. She said 3rd wants it to be safe and successful so it is o nding issues. She said she gives the owners the what was required of them, but she is concerned about d support this request with the Police Chief's conditions. Waldhauser said she is not sure if sta concerns regarding this use. Sh I favorably on businesses that d this is a good activity to hav . Lair is an asset to the co unfortunate that there ar benefit of the doubt' not the Police Chief's is about the parking issues and would like to see staffs this proposal is approved. Keysser said he appreciates the space for their ramps and asked Grimes what he sees as a s s ed that there can't be items stored in required parking spaces and re all of the safety requirements are met. He said he is not sure where been the applicant and the Deputy Fire Marshal is because he talked Fire Marshal last week and was told that the issues in his memo still need to be ad d but the applicant is saying that the items have already been addressed. He said he has to listen to staff and go with staff's recommendations. Keysser agreed that there are some unanswered questions and suggested tabling the item to clear up some of the ambiguous issues. Waldhauser suggested that the applicants also get a parking plan with the neighboring property in place too. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 6 Schmidgall agreed that there are too many loose ends in this proposal. Eck said he doesn't think anyone on the Commission is questioning the applicant's desire to do a good job they just need to get some clarification. Hogeboom reiterated that he would start working on setting up a meeting with staff and the applicants. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to table the applicant's request. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and RedevelQ Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetiqg No reports were given. 5. Other Business No other business was discussed. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourn Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 20, 2010 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP-126) to Allow for Two Roof-mounted Satellite Dishes at 7575 Golden Valley Road - Bob Benes (Starboard Media Foundation, Inc.), Applicant Background and Proposed Use Relevant Radio, a radio broadcasting network, is proposing to lease space in the building located at 7575 Golden Valley Road. Approximately ten associates will occupy the leased space. The leased space will contain mostly office uses. However, one room in the space will be configured as a broadcast studio which will host the operation of WLOL-AM 1330. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to install two roof-mounted satellite dishes on the building. Satellite dishes between two and nine meters (6.56-29.52 feet) in diameter are allowed in the Business and Professional Office Zoning District through a Conditional Use Permit. The two satellite dishes that are being proposed are each 3.1 meters in diameter. Analysis of Ten Factors The Planning Commission must make findings on ten factors when reviewing a CUP application. They are as follows with staff comment: 1. Demonstrated Need of the Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a market for the proposed good or service necessitating a CUP. Relevant Radio has established its niche in the radio broadcasting market. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map guides the 7575 Golden Valley Road as long-term office use. A radio station, with subsequent satellite dishes, is consistent with this Ia.nd use designation. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Staff does not believe the approval of this permit will negatively affect property values in the area. As required by City Code, the applicant must place the proposed satellite dishes on the roof or within property setback areas. This is to ensure that the satellite dishes are as visually unobtrusive as possible. Adhering to these measures will ensure no negative impacts occur to neighboring property values. 4. Effect of Use on Traffic in the Area: The proposed satellite dishes will have no impact on traffic. 5. Effect of Increases in Density or Population on the Area: The proposed satellite dishes will have no effect on population. 6. Increase in Noise Created by Use: The proposed satellite dishes will not create noise. 7. Any Dust, Odor or Vibration caused by Use: The proposed satellite dishes will not create dust, odor, or excessive vibrations. 8. Any Increase in Animal Pests Caused by the Use: The proposed satellite dishes will not attract animal pests of any kind. 9. Visual Appearance of the Use: The visual appearance of the proposed satellite dishes must adhere to Section 11.71, Subdivision 6(0)(3) of City Code. The visual appearance of the satellite dishes will have minimal impacts to surrounding properties. 10. Other Effects of the Use: Staff does not anticipate any negative effects of the proposed use. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. to install two roof-mounted satellite dishes. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The satellite dishes may not be artificially illuminated, unless required by law or the Federal Aviation Administration. 2. The placement, design, use, and operation of the satellite dishes must comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. 3. Each satellite dish must not exceed nine meters in diameter. 4. The satellite dishes must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. The dishes must conform to the City's Building Code. 5. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Email from Deputy Fire Chief Ed Anderson, dated December 28, 2009 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative General (1 page) Applicant's Narrative Technical (5 pages) Aerial Photos of the Property (2 pages) ~ . 10lli e 10TH AVE N ~I ... ./ 1012 1000 1004 o o 855 831 28 7520 7701 '00000000 o o 8 dXlCCOOCOOo 0 o 7&00 ~ o rn ~ j; z: o l> ~ Z mm 7500 7732 7600 n247710 I I I 40i 7644 10ll!l 10115 28 z ~ < ~ :; ... ~ Z w il. /' ,/ subject Property: 7575 Golden Valley Rd. 7505 17421 1475 ~ ltIGHWA Y 55 7045 7031 7200 Ii 7182 '7156 I 7146 rOOl1743O 17420 7340 '7330 732~!l' !~23-6 \ 7218 Wittman. Lisa From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Anderson, Ed Monday, December 28,20098:16 AM Grimes, Mark Wittman, Lisa CU-126-7575 Golden Valley Road Mark, Reviewing the application for the CU-126 located at 7575 GVR. The Golden Valley Fire Department has no comments for the installation of two roof mounted satellite dishes for the proposed AM radio station broadcasting. The office space in conjunction with AM radio station proposed for the site will need to meet the fire and building codes Ed Anderson I Deputy Fire Marshall Golden Valley Fire Department 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427 I 763-593-80651 763-593-8098 (Fax) ea nderson@ci.golden-vallev.mn.us COMMUNiCATiON CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR revievl, u~e, (ji~dosure or distribution attachments irom oil computers Narrative Detail Description General The use of the leased space in the building is primarily for the use of offices. Approximately, 10 associates will occupy the space and largely provide management and sales services for the organization. The office hours of operation will primarily be 8:30- 5:00pm, Monday - Friday. One room in the space will be configured as a broadcast studio in which the station manager will operateWLOL-AM 1330. The satellite dishes to be installed are for the purpose of broadcasting the signal and provide a backup for Relevant Radio network operations. Refer to the Technical portion of the Narrative for details regarding the placement and specifications of the satellite/antenna system. Narrative Detail Description Ted1n\ c.~\ Relevant Radiotl is a non-profit radio network that owns, operates, and programs 10 radio stations. The programming that appears on the Relevant Radio owned stations is also carried on 19 other affiliates around the United States. The placement of satellite dish(s), not to exceed 2. would help with local programming on both the local Minneapolis/St. Paul market radio station WLOL-AM 1330, as well as allow for a network facility within the same complex. The satellite dishes) are 3.1 meters in diameter and will be on a non-penetrating roof mount that will be held down by weights to keep the mount(s) and dishes) from any movement. The dishes) will have antenna controllers connected to them which will allow the satellite dishes to look at nearly the entire skyline of satellites with available programming. The antenna controllers allow us to keep the number of dishes to an absolute minimum. The specs for the Patriot 3.1 Meter Antenna (Satellite Dish) and the non-penetrating roof mount are listed below. Patriot 3.1 Meter Antenna Svstem Antenna Systems 704 North Clark st. . Albion, MI 49224 USA 517.629.5990 . 800.470.3510 toll free 517.629.6690 fax. info@sepatriot.com www.sepatriot.com @ Copyright 2004 All product speclflcations subject to change without notice. Rev. 01.05.2007 Receive Frequency Range 3.625.4.2 GHz (other banda available) Midband GaIn 39.9 dBl NaiR Temperature 58 K typ@ 10' Ports I Polarization Polarization Rolallon 360. Continuous Polarlzation Isolation 30 dB LP vsWR Rx 1.4:1 Feed Flanges Rx CPR 229G FIO Rallo 0.336 Focal Oistance 41.0- Azimuth Travel 120" Arc (PoIllI'INa 360" continuous (Az-El) E/evation TraveIISite latitude () 0" \0 90"(Az/EI) 10"\070" (N81IlgalOl) Polarization Travel :t 90. AnteMB System Welgh\ 379 Lbs. (PoIar/Az-500 Lbs. (NavigaIot) Wind Loedlng Operl!tional60 mph, SlI'fival120 mph Tempemu1'8 Operatlonal-4O" to 140" F ( -40" to SO"C) Survival-6O" to 180" ( -51" to arC) Rain Operattonall.5 InIhr (1.3 an/h) Survival 3 In! her (7.6 cm/h) Ice Survival 2.5 em (1 Inch) redial or 1.3 (.5 Inch) redial + 100 kph 160 mph} BAIRD~ SATELLITE SLJF~POHr t:'lG SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION 1. Constructed of high test steel tube. 2. All joints welded. 3. Hot dip galvanized. 4. Requires no drilling to install. 5. Ballast obtained locally. :B G> m .... 0) BAIRD Non-Penetrating Supporting System Versatile Satellite Antenna Base Engineered for durability, sImplicity, and flexibility 1. Sets up fast. 2. Rock solid. 3. Hot dip galvanized for superior and long term durability. 3. Typical usage antenna size 10' (3.0M) to 12' (3.7M) for transmit and receive. 4. Drop shipped direct to installers. .' UNIVERSAL MOUNT MODEL: PXL.2 BA.IRD ~ SAlt:.LLlTE SUPPORTING SYST[~,JS ~ S'-4~ 1 ,,'.0- -I ~ r- 11'-31.~ I 1 r...;al.~ 20'-" .318- , . .~.f . . . . . .... ____ . . .313- 1 6'-3.112- J PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS MODEL: PXL-2 Non-Penetrating or Penetrating flat roof antenna supporting system. TYPICAL USAGE 1. Handles up to a 12.0' (3.7M) antenna. 2. Ku & C band - transmit and receive. 3. Pad areas - 25.00 and 33.33 sq.ft. 4. Footprints a. 4' x 6' = 17.7' X 17.7' = 313.29 sq.ft. b. 5'4" x 6' = 20.3' X 20.3' = 412.1 sq.ft. Finish - Hot dip galvanized Mast Diameter - as required Mast Height - as required The mount if needed can be equipped with a leveling device. Ballast required will be recommended based on antenna diameter, type and survival requirements. It is the customer's responsibility to see that all applicable codes are satisfied. It is suggested that a structural engineer review the application of this product. An engineering report is available to assist with determining the proper amount of ballast. A pad can be supplied to Isolate the mount from the roof surface. Under extreme wind conditions the mount should be tethered with cable. 3.1 /3.8/ 4.5m Prime Focus Antenna System Features · Multi-Feed Systems Available (up to 4) · Available in Dual Axis Motorized, King Post, and Az-EI Fixed Pipe Head mounts · 125 Mph Wind Survival · King Post Pedestal Mount for Superior Steering and Stabiliity · High Accuracy Antenna, Low Transportation Cost Description The Patriot prime focus antenna is manufactured in the United States and is the symbol of quality in the antenna industry. It features a variety of mounting options and a dual sided galvanized reflector which is powder coated for superior protection against the elements. Stainless steel hardware is also available. The contoured petals with matched radial beams and hub assembly ensure easy installa- tion without field alignment. This antenna is competitively priced for the broadcast and cable industry as well as the educational market. Complete turnkey systems are available. 3.1/3.8/4.5m Prime Focus Antenna System 3.1m Prime Focus Antenna Receive Frequency Range (other bands avaUable) Midband Gain Noise Temperature Ports 1 Polarization Polarization Rotation Polarization Isolation VSWR Feed Flanges 3.625 - 4.2 GHz 10.95 -12.75 GHz 39.9 dBI 56Klyp@10. 48.7 dBI 55K@10. 360. Continuous 30 dB LP Rxl.4:1 Rx CPR 229G 30 dB LP Rx 1.4:1 Rx WR75 FID Ratio Focal Distance Azimuth Travel 0.336 Elevation Travel/Site Latitude Polarization Travel Antenna System Weight Boxed Dimensions Units per 4011. Container 41.0" 120. Arc (PoIarlNa 360. Continuous (Az-El) 0" to 90.(AzlEI) 10"-00" (Polar) 10. to 70. O. to 90.(AzIEI) (Navigator) 10. to 70. (Navigator) :t90. 379 Lbs. (PoIarlAz.500 Lbs. (Navigator) 68x48x18' (PoIar/~68x48x3O" (Navigator) 96 units (poIarlAz-172 units (Navigator) Wind Loading T emperalure Operational 60 mph. Survival 120 mph 100 kph 193 kph ( -40. to 60.C) ( -51. to 8TC) (1.3 cmlh) (7.6 cmlh) Rain Operational -40. to 140. F Survival -60. to 180. Ice Operational 1.5 In/hr Survival 3 inl her Survival 2.5 em (1 Inch) radial or 1.3 (.5 inch) radial + 100 kph (60 mph) ~I~A_M_~ 704 North Clark St. · Albion, MI 49224 USA 517.629.5990 · 800.470.3510 toll free 517.629.6690 fax. info@sepatriot.com www.sepatriot.com Rev.01.05.2007 <<> Copyright 2004 All product specifications subject to change without notice. 3.8m Prime Focus Antenna Receive Frequency Range (other bands available) Midband Gain Noise Temperature Ports 1 Polarization Motorized feed system also avalable Polarization Rotation Polarization IsoIalion VSWR Feed Flanges 3.625.4.2 GHz 10.95 -12.75 GHz 41.5 dBI 50.3 dBl 50 K @ 10. 55 K @ 10. 1 or 2 port circular 1 1 or 2 port linear 1 or 2 port linear 360. Continuous 30 dB LP Rx 1.4:1 Rx CPR 229G 30 dB LP Rx 1.4:1 Rx WR75 F/D Ratio Focal Distance AzImuth Travel 0.413 0.413 0.413 61.8In. 61.81n. 61.8 in. 360. ContInuous 132' Arc. 120' Mot. 13T Arc 100 to 90" 10. to 90. 10. to 90. :tOO. :tOO. :tOO. 705 Lbs. 612 1 725 Lbs. 610/210 Lbs. 87x36x30 in. 87x36x30 In. 87x36x30 In. 48x48x94 in. 68x48x12In. 39 units 21 units 36 units Elevation Travel Polarization Travel Totat Weight Craie Dimensions Units per 40 It Container En rDnl'lPntaI5;)(r tl(:3'1\,."'llS Wind Loading 60 mph Operalional 120 mph Survival 100 kph. 193 kph Temperature Operalional -40" to 140. F Survival -00. to 180.F ( -40. to GO.C) ( _51. to 8TC) Rain Ice Operallonal 1.5 inthr (1.3 cm/h) Survival 3 InI hr (7.6 em/h) 2.5 em (1 inch) radial or 1.3 (.5 inch) radial + 100 kph (60 mph) Survival Shock & Vibration As occurred during one shipment of air, truck. or rail 4.5m Prime Focus Antenna Receive Frequency Range (other bands available) Midband Gain Noise Temperature Ports 1 Polarization Motorized feed system also available Polarization Rotation Polarization Isolation VSWR Feed Flanges 3.625 - 4.2 GHz 10.95-12.75 GHz 42.7 dBi 50 K @ 10. 1 or 2 pQrt circular 1 or 2 port linear 360. Continuous 30 dB LP Rx 1.4:1 Rx CPR229G 51.9 dBi 55 K @ 10' 1 or 2 port linear 30 dB LP Rx 1.4:1 Rx WR75 F 10 Ratio Focal Distance Azimuth Travel 0.35 62.0 in 360. Continuous 0.35 62.0 in 132' Arc Elel!8tion Travel Polarization Travel Total Weight Crate Dimensions Units Per 40ft Container 150 to 90" :t 900 964 Lbs. 112 x 46 x 42 in. 20 units 150 to 90" :t 90. 875/725 Lbs. 112x 46x42/48 x 46x 94 In. 14 units Wind Loading Temperature Operational 60 mph Survival 120 mph -400 to 140. F Operalional _60. to 180.F Survival 100 kph 193 kph ( -40. to 6O'C) ( -51. to 82.C) Rain Operational 1.5 in/hr Survival 3 in! hr (3.8 cm/h) (7.6 emlh) Ice Survival 2.5 em (1 inch) radial or'+ 100 kph (60 mph) Shock & Vibration As occurred during one shipment of air. truck. or rail / / V' Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 20, 2010 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP- 121) to Allow for up to 20 Children to Occupy the Employee Daycare Facility at 9400 Golden Valley Road - Dr. Rebecca Thomley (Chief Executive Officer, RHT Office LLC.), Applicant Background In February of 2008, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was issued to RHT Office LLC. The purpose of the CUP was to allow a daycare to operate in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. The daycare is used by children of employees who work in the building. Meridian Services, Zenith Services, and Orion ISO, all of which are related social service agencies, currently occupy the building. Currently, CUP-121 allows up to ten children to occupy the daycare at one time. Dr. Rebecca Thomley, Chief Executive Officer of RHT Office LLC, has requested an amendment to CUP-121 in order to allow up to 20 children to occupy the daycare at one time. Section 11.45, Subdivision 7(B)(9) allows child care facilities to be located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District as a conditional use. The Zoning Code does not specify a limit to the number children allowed in a daycare facility at anyone time. No other changes to CUP-121 are being requested. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the amendment to CUP-121 allowing RHT Office LLC to accommodate up to 20 children at one time in its on-site daycare facility. The approval of an amendment to CUP-121 is subject to the following conditions: 1. All existing conditions continue to be met. 2. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 3. A Minnesota registered architect must establish a fire code analysis to assign an 'educational occupant' designation to the area of the building used for the daycare facility. The code analysis must be reviewed by the Building Official and the Fire Marshal to ensure proper building and fire code requirements. 4. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson, dated January 4, 2010 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Conditional Use Permit No. 121 (1 page) Memo from Joe Hogeboom dated January 8, 2008 (3 pages) January 14, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes (3 pages) 28 005 o o llOO 850 1111 83S 000 o o o o o o o o 0000 (X) 0000 000 00 642 o o VI m >- ~ :: lI;l ~ " .. ~ 6211 U o o o 0000(1 c9 0 0 71111000 0 0 o o ~ 9326 91111 93llll 9UO 89llll 0050 ??oo o o o .. Subject Property: 9400 Golden Valley Rd ~& GOL~NVA~EYRD ~~,,:2IlJ.:::^9:lZS q ,,<>'. "....1 9300 1'0",4' . 'iJ.3~ 28 92211 It~ ~t'/Si '" f\\Gtf</'ll'<'15S 'rItUlflW t< '1S5 _"'/>.'1,,5 \:\1\\:>""" 433 ~... 0031 ::: 424 421 )> <: '" 341 ;It ""'0 ~ 1-~ ..t' ~ ..:,. 345 A"" !' '<,,~ ",0 rp,~ ..'0 '%> 319 325 9001893389258911 I 8913 HAROLD ^"E~ Cl) \'I-v C6,d'(] ',y::,h A-f';:)M:8, C<.l:;..'1,6r,j\t ~Ci L03i:S 8m 2Xl5 4€4fl Depa~1!~y Fire Department 763-593-8065 I 763-593-8098 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Conditional Use Permit Application Amendment for 9400 Golden Valley Rd. Date: January 4, 2010 The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application for a conditional use permit amendment for 9400 Golden Valley Rd. The amendment to the conditional use permit is to allow existing daycare located at that same site to increase from 20 children instead of 10. The Golden Valley Fire Department will need to have a Minnesota registered architect to establish code analysis to change the use of the current building from an 1-4 (Institutional 4), to an E (educational occupancy). The code analysis will need to be reviewed by the building official and the fire marshal for the proper building and fire code requirements. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or eanderson@2ci.Qolden-valley.mn.us. ea/jl 1....1 QIgQ~ Orion Associates Central Office: 44 North 28th Avenue, Suite D, Saint Cloud, Minnesota 56303 Phone: (320) 255-5151 FAX: (320) 202-9471 Metropolitan Office: 9400 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Phone: (763)-450-5000 FAX: (763) -450- 5000 December 23, 2009 City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Dear City Planners: Please consider our request to amend our conditional use permit to accommodate up to 20 children in our on-site employee daycare. At this time we are at our approved capacity of 10 children. We are able to apply for a daycare center license which will allow us to have up to 20 children. The space in our building will accommodate the change in capacity. RHT LLC owns the property that houses the administrative and management employees for Orion Associates, Meridian Services, Zenith Services and Orion ISO, related social services agencies that provide a great variety of services to people with disabilities. Our agencies employ over 1500 people most of whom provide direct services to the hundreds of families and individuals that receive social services. We currently employ approximately 60 people that use the office space at 9400 Golden Valley Road. Over the past two years, our employee daycare has grown to 10 children. Several of our key staff are having children this Spring; which is why we have decided to apply for a new license that will accommodate this increased usage. As before, only employees will use the daycare. The employees work at our offices at 9400 Golden Valley Road. Please let me know if you need additional information. I can be reached at 612- 501-4499. ~ -'''~' !. ',~ '~cca Thomley Chief Executive Officer RHT LLC CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 121 Date of Approval: February 6.2008 by the City Council in accordance with Sec. 11.10. Subd. 2 and Section 11.30 of City Code Issued To: RHT Office LLC Approved Location: 9400 Golden Valley Road. Golden Valley, MN Approved Conditional Use: To allow for the operation of a daycare facility in approximately 1.000 square feet of the existing building located in the Business and Professional Offices (BPO) ZoninQ District Conditions of Approval: 1. No outdoor signage may be used to advertise or otherwise promote the daycare. 2. Children attending the daycare must have a parent who is employed in the facility. 3. The number of children attending the daycare at any time must be no greater than ten. 4. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm. 5. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements. 6. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 7. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment. 8. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 9. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation. Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other city code provisions, regulations, and ordinances. Issued by: ...~~ Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development t- Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 8, 2008 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP-121) to Allow for an Employee Daycare Facility at 9400 Golden Valley Road - Peter Thomley (Representative, RHT Office LLC.), Applicant Background Mr. Peter Thomley, representative for RHT Office LLC, has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to allow an employee daycare at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The property is located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Section 11.45, Subdivision 7(B)(7) allows conditional uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with uses specffically described in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Staff has determined that an employee daycare is compatible with other functions of the District. RHT Office LLC is the owner of the property at 9400 Golden Valley Road. Meridian Services and Orion ISO, related social service agencies, currently occupy the building. The proposed daycare facility would be used for Meridian Services and Orion ISO employees' children only. Proposed Use In addition to being located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, 9400 Golden Valley Road is guided for Office Use in the Comprehensive Plan. The building was constructed in 1976 and has housed business and office-related clients since its construction. In its Conditional Use Permit application, RHT LLC explains that the proposed daycare would be used by ten children. The proposed daycare would accommodate four infants and six toddlers. Proposed hours of operation would be from 7 am to 7 pm, with an average of two daycare staff members present during that time. The proposed daycare will occupy 1004 square feet of space inside the building. In addition, 1500 square feet of outdoor space (to be fenced-in) would be dedicated to the proposed daycare. The facility will include amenities standard for a childcare operation. Employee-only ~ daycare facilities are qualified conditional uses within the Light Industrial Zoning District, which is located directly north of the proposed site. 9400 Golden Valley Road is currently being remodeled. Upon completion of remodeling, the parking lot will be re-striped. The proposed daycare would not require the building to add additional spaces beyond whatis necessary for current expansion plans. With limited daycare staff, there will be minimal impact on parking. Analysis of Ten Factors Per City Code, the Planning Commission must make findings on ten factors when reviewing a CUP application. They are as follows with staff comment: 1. Demonstrated Need of the Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a legitimate need for a Conditional Use Permit. RHT Properties has demonstrated this by citing the number of employees with young children who work at 9400 Golden Valley Road. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map depicts the proposed site as long-term office use. An employee-only daycare facility does not conflict with that use. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Staff does not believe the approval of this permit will affect property values in the area in any way. 4. Effect of Use on Traffic in the Area: Ch i1dren of the proposed. daycare will arrive with parents who would otherwise be on the site, therefore not impacting traffic. The minimal number of daycare staff will not negatively impact area traffic. 5. Effectof Increases in Density or Population on the Area: The proposed use will not increase the population ofthe area. Since this use is non-residential, only the daytime population of Golden Valley would be (very minimally) effected. 6. Increase in Noise Created by Use: Noise impacts created by this proposed facility should not extend beyond the site. 7. Any Dust, Odor or Vibration caused by Use: No such problems are expected to be caused by this proposal. 8. Any Increase in Animal Pests Caused by the Use: The nature of this facility does not contribute to the existence of pests in anyway. 9. Visual Appearance of the Use: The exterior of the building will not be affected by the proposeddaycare. A 1500 square foot outdoor play facility will be completely fenced in. 10. Other Effects of the Use: Staff does not anticipate any negative effects of the proposed use. .. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing RHT Office LLC to operate an employee-only daycare in the facility located at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. No outdoor signage may be used to advertise or otherwise promote the daycare. 2. Children attending the daycare must have a parent who is employed in the facility. 3. The number of children attending the daycare at any time must be no greater than ten. 4. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm. 5. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements. 6. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 7. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment. 8. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Attachments: Location Map ( 1 page) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson, dated January 3,2008 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) Applicant's List of Proposed Site Specifications (2 pages) Pictures of 9400 Golden Valley Road (4 pages) Site Plans (4 oversized pages) *" Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 A regular meeting of the Planning Co mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, cil Chambers, 7800 Golden Vall' y Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Mo~day, De ber 17, 2007. Chair Keysser c 'led the meeting to order at 7 pm. , Those p~"nt were Planning Comm 'sioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Klu, a, McCarty, Schmidgall a~" Waldhauser. Also pr 'ent was Council Member B . " haffer, Director of Planning and ", lopment Mark Gri ' s, Planning Intern Joe H ,'eboom and Administrative Ass nt Lisa Wittma / ,? /, A,' ' ing/Enviro~entallOpen Space and Recreation If; .;f' , December 17, 2007 Joi Commission Meeting 1. Eck reterred to the last sentence on management practices" regarding b Lundstrom didn't specifically piscus buffer zones around ponds and ~~ helps keep bacteria levels do? . , MOVED by Eek. seconde;'{ MeGa' and motion carried imously to approve the December 17, 2007 jOi~~~~ning/En ,ronmental/Open Space Recreation Commission meetin~J'f\inutes as sUb,tted. , , Decembe '7, 2007 Regular PI ,ning Comrnission Meeting j! Waldhauser terred to the first parag h on page 2 and stated that the se should re as follows: He said that in asing the volume "of space between would an more than reducing the h .~ ht... \ MO D by Eck, seconded by Cera an , otion carried unanimously to approve the , D ember 17, 2007 regular Planning C mission meeting minutes with the above noted " rrection. " 2. Informal Public Hearing - RHT Office LLC - 9400 Golden Valley Road Applicant: RHT Office LLC Address: 9400 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow the applicant to operate an employee only daycare center in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom explained that RHT Office LLC is the owner of the property at 9400 Golden Valley Road and that Meridian Services and Orion ISO currently occupy the building. He stated that the property is zoned Business and Professional Offices and the applicant is proposing to operate an employee only daycare center in approximately 1,000 square feet of the building which requires a Conditional Use Permit. He discussed the ten factors that the Planning Commission must consider when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application. He noted that the daycare will have approximately 2 employees and staff believes that traffic in the area won't be impacted by this proposed use and there should be no effect on the surrounding properties. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Keysser asked about the building expansion currently under construction. Hogeboom said he would like the applicant to discuss the building expansion. Kluchka noted that the applicant's narrative states that they would like to provide daycare for 10 children. He asked if that number (10 children) is space specific or operation specific and if the space would actually allow for more than 10 children. Grimes stated that the space could allow for more children but that the State specifies the limits. He added that the Planning Commission could be more flexible and allow the applicant to have 10 to 15 children instead of limiting it to 10. Keysser said he thinks it makes sense to allow for 10 to 15 children so the applicant wouldn't have to amend their Conditional Use Permit for an 11th child. Kluchka noted that the applicant's narrative states that the daycare will serve 10 employees, not 10 children. Steve Johnson, TDB Builders, applicant, referred to a site plan of the interior of the building and pointed out the proposed daycare space and outdoor play area. He noted that the neighboring property to the north would be screened from the outdoor play area. He clarified that the narrative submitted with the application should have stated that the daycare will serve 10 children, not 10 employees. He explained that the daycare area has the capacity for occupancy for 28 children. However, the owner of the business does not want to apply for licensing beyond 10 children. He referred to the building expansion currently underway and stated that it is a LEED certified building. Eck asked why this business would have a greater need for a daycare than another business might have. Johnson stated that this business has a predominately female work force and he thinks more businesses will be providing this type of amenity in the future. Kluchka said he thinks other businesses should be encouraged to offer this amenity and suggested putting an article about this building and the daycare use in the City newsletter. " ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 3 Grimes stated that daycare facilities are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts and suggested the same could be allowed in the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. Kluchka asked if the owner will be installing bicycle racks as a part of their expansion. Johnson stated yes and explained that the LEED certification process requires bicycle racks. He also stated that they will have special parking stalls for hybrid cars and they are recycling the demolition materials as well. Waldhauser asked about sidewalk connections to the site. Johnson said the architect is currently working on that part of the plans. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka suggested removing condition number three that states there can be no greater than 10 children attending the daycare since it's regulated by the State licensing process. Waldhauser agreed. Cera said he would like to keep that condition in the approval because the City would like to know if the applicant ever considers changing that number. Grimes said staff will review the existing zoning code as it relates to daycare centers in order to allow daycare centers in additional zoning districts. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to allow the applicant to operate an employee only daycare room in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District with the following conditions: 1. No outdoor signage may be used to advertise or otherwise promote the daycare. 2. Children attending the daycare must have a parent who is employed in the facility. 3. The number of children attending the daycare at any time must be no greater than ten. 4. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm. 5. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements. 6. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 7. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment. 8. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 9. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation. Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 20, 2010 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision to Subdivide Lot 9, Block 5, Tralee into Two Lots (100 Brunswick Ave. N.)-Peter Miller, Applicant Peter Miller is the applicant for a minor subdivision to split Lot 9, Block 5, Tralee into two lots. At the present time, Mr. Miller lives in the house that is located on the lot. The address of the house is 100 Brunswick Ave. N. It is located just to the north of Glenwood Ave. on Brunswick. His proposal is to demolish the house that is located in the middle of the lot. By removing the house, the existing lot may be divided into two lots because the size of the lot. As shown on the attached survey, the area of Lot 9 is 29,680 sq. ft. Lots within the Single Family (R-1) zoning district must be a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. in area with at least 80 ft. of street frontage at the front setback line. Proposed Lot 1 will be 14,500 sq. ft. in area and Lot 2 will be 15,180 sq. ft. (Lot 1 exceeds the minimum lot size by 45% and Lot 2 exceed the minimum lot size by 51%.) Both lots also exceed the minimum lot width requirement of 80 ft. at the front setback line. Mr. Miller has submitted a preliminary plan of the minor subdivision that indicates the layout of the two lots. The plan shows the building envelope area for each of the lots. The envelope area is determined by the building setback requirements. Each of the building areas allow more than adequate space for a new house. The final plat for this development would not be submitted for approval until the existing house is removed. The Subdivision Code states that after approval of the preliminary plan by the City Council, the final plat must be submitted for approval within 180 days unless an extension is granted by the City Council. According to City records, the house was built in 1953 with an addition added in 1961. The pool was constructed in 1982. The property is currently zoned Single Family (R-1) and the area is guided on the Land Use Plan map for low density residential uses. The area around this property is also zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential uses. The Tralee addition was subdivided over 50 years ago. Many of the lots in the area are in the 20,000 sq. ft. to 35,000 sq. ft. size. There are a few lots less than 20,000 sq. ft. in area. I have enclosed a map indicating the sizes of some of the lots in the area. Back in 2005, a lot was subdivided into two lots on Cutacross Rd. just north of Brunswick (211 and 203 Cutacross). 1 There was opposition from some property owners in the neighborhood to this subdivision but it was approved. Much of the discussion centered on how this area was originally developed into large lots and how splitting the lot changes the character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Cutacross preliminary plan for the subdivision on a 4-1 vote and the City Council unanimously approved both the preliminary plan and final plat. Since the Cutacross subdivision was approved, the City went through a detailed study to address issues of infill development. As a result of that study, changes were made to the R-1 zoning code related to side setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. There was also discussion at the time of the Cutacross plat about the possibility of owners within the Tralee area adding deed restrictions to eliminate or control the splitting of lots. Staff has not been made aware of any covenants that have been placed on lots in this area. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a memo to me regarding engineering issues. His memo will become part of the recommended approval. Factors for Consideration and Approval Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in the Subdivision Code, Section 12.50, Subd. 3. Staff findings on each of the nine points are as follows: 1. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning district. As stated above, each of the proposed lots exceeds the minimum lot and width size requires for the R- 1 zoning district. Both lots will have full frontage on a public street. 2. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's determination that steep slopes or excessive wetness encumbers the buildable portion of the resulting new lot. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a memo to me dated January 21, 2010 regarding this subdivision. The issue of steep slopes or excessive wetness was not addressed in his memo because these concerns are not present on the property. 3. Minor subdivisions may be denied if public sewer and water connections are not directly accessible to each proposed lot. As stated in the City Engineer's memo, there is existing sanitary sewer and water available to each of the newly created lots. 4. Approval of minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the applicant's granting of easements for necessary public purposes as determined by the City. In his memo, the City Engineer has asked for additional easements. These easements must be shown on the final plat of the subdivision. 5. When public agencies other than the City have some form of jurisdiction over an area including or directly affected by a proposed minor subdivision, approval of that minor subdivision may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency. There are no requirements from any outside agencies necessary to approve this subdivision. 6. If the applicant is required to submit a review of the property's title, the approval of the minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the applicant's resolution of any title issues raised by the City Attorney. The City Attorney will review this proposal and determined if it is necessary to review title information. 2 Any review of title is done at the expense of the applicant. In this case title review may be required because the applicant will be dedicating easements to the City. 7. Minor subdivisions of non-residential properties may be denied if the City Engineer determines that adequate public facilities are not available to serve the site. This condition does not apply since this is residential property. 8. Approval of a residential minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee in an amount established by the City Council. By ordinance, the City has the right to assess a park dedication fee at the time of final plat approval. The final amount is determined by the City Council. 9. Refers to minor subdivisions for double bungalows. This is not applicable in this case. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision of Lot 9, Block 5, Tralee (100 Brunswick Ave. N.) with the following conditions: 1. The final plat of the minor subdivision shall be consistent with the preliminary plan submitted with the subdivision application. 2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated January 21, 2010, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid at time of final plat approval. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council. 4. The existing house must be removed prior to final plat approval by the City Council. Attachment Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated January 21,2010 (3 pages) Area map indicating size of nearby lots (1 page) Survey of Lot (not to scale) (1 page) Survey of Lot (to scale) (1 page) Email from Shelley McDonald, dated January 20, 2010 (1 page) 3 245 316 300 240 230 220 221 ZllI 146 117 1$0 124 109 120 6324 6320 105 145 205 124 116 115 31 Subject Property: 100 Brunswick Ave. N. 25 15 I 5924 l=J \ GLENWOODAVE 115 100 6145 6Zl7 120 125 140 ltl w 145 ::> <I: <( 200 t3 205 lie ~ 220 225 240 245 305 125 6101 16S 120 125 ltl 140 ~ 14S <( lie l:l 200 !1: 20S !2 ~ IX ttl 225 z::W 240 245 150 111 6015 110 1.20 140 130 Q IX :.:: w w IX U !E ~ ::.: 0' IX. ~~ _I: 32: C1 ZI ~j 131 160 6001 135 300 305 llS 135 lS5 Rhvine 'pend Hey o m Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: January 21,2010 To: From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer~ Subdivision Review for 100 Brunswick Avenue North Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision at 100 Brunswick Avenue North. The proposed subdivision is located just north of Glenwood Avenue, and splits an existing single-family lot with an existing home on it, into two conforming lots. Streets and Lavout The existing single-family lot is within the Tralee plat. The platted right-of-way for Brunswick Avenue North is 40 feet wide, with a 70-foot wide, rectangular "cul-de-sac." These existing right-of-way widths are not consistent with the current Subdivision Ordinance requirements, which require a 50-foot wide street right-of-way and a 45-foot radius on cul-de-sacs. However, because Brunswick Avenue is a cul-de-sac with a residential neighborhood surrounding it, there is very little potential for street widening or extension in the future. Therefore, no additional street right-of-way will be required with this subdivision. However, in order to provide adequate space for the future installation or burial of utilities outside of the paved street surface, additional drainage and utility easements will be required as part of the platting. Therefore, the final plat for this subdivision must include a 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement on the street frontage for the development. The final plat must also include drainage and utility easements as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, the final plat must include 1 O-foot wide drainage and utility easements on the non-street frontage boundaries, and 12-foot wide easements, centered on the property line, on the internal lot lines. Brunswick Avenue North was reconstructed as part of the 2005 Pavement Management project. Because this parcel had the potential to be subdivided, the Special Assessment Roll for the project included one levied and one deferred special assessment for the lot. G:\Developments - Private\1 00 Brunswick North\Review 01211 O.doc The $3,200 deferred special assessment must be paid prior to forwarding the final plat to the City Council for its approval. The developer will be required to obtain right-of-way permits for the installation and/or relocation of driveways for the two lots. These permits will require the installation of City standard driveway aprons and restoration of the street according to City standards. Utilities The existing City sanitary sewer and water systems providing service to this property have adequate capacity for the proposed development. There is currently one sanitary sewer service and one water service to the existing home on this property. Therefore, a second set of services will be required at the time of home construction. The developer has demonstrated that extension of these services to the property is possible. The developer will be required to obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits, and a right-of-way permit for the installation of utility services. The existing sanitary sewer service to the existing home must be compliant with the Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance prior to occupancy of the new home that will be serviced. Therefore, a CCTV inspection of the sewer service will be required at the time of home demolition and a Certificate of Compliance must be issued for the portions of the sewer service that are not replaced. Stormwater and Grading This development will be subject to the Stormwater Ordinance. Therefore, the demolition of the existing home and the construction of the two new homes will each require a stormwater permit. The permits for new home construction will require the submittal of grading plans. This development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-district of the Bassett Creek watershed. Based upon the size of the development, review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission will not be required. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Therefore, tree preservation permits will be required at the time homes are constructed on the new lots. Recommendation Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision of the existing single-family lot at 100 Brunswick Avenue North subject to the comments contained in this review. These comments are summarized as follows: G:\Developments - Private\100 Brunswick North\Review 012110.doc 1. Dedication of drainage and utility easements as discussed above. 2. Payment of the deferred $3,200 special assessment for the 2005 Pavement Management project prior to the final plat being forwarded to the City Council for review. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy AI Lundstrom Eric Eckman Mitch Hoeft Mark Kuhnly Gary Johnson Ed Anderson G:\Developments - Private\ 100 Brunswick North\Review 01211 O.doc MoW ';;f~k'd 'Ni~l Arcl\'lS ' C<;l:f't'<'\I~t ,;Ci LOOm 9iS ~.)w rn g rn ~ 0' ):;> <: m Z 320 316 3llO 240 230 220 21(1 146 130 124 120 110 6324 6320 6330 105 6231 115 125 316 324 245 250 221 124 117 116 109 us 31/(;>22. 26 28 25 31 15 6100 Illt ifJI ,S 921 t ~ q t(P GlENWOOD AVE 100 6101 1(15 120 III 120 ~ 125 140 <( ~ ~ 100 140 \II 145 Z ::l " <I'l 1110 :zoo 205 2OO'J 6145 111 110 U5 6015 Q IX l.: 131 '" 130 '" IX V 6001 !i ... 150 l.: 125 215 120 VI w :> <( g '" i3 145 140 200 205 210 r--.... / / / / \~~ / SAN MH ~~ ' TR-905.0 V \ d'/ / ~ IVV=895.0 / <J' / , / ' ~ \/ /1 :s() / / //"'/ ~~ --1._ '--.. -"l'..-I I "> ~o-t --,0 EXISTING ~ m6~~{ / UTLITY -=- _ '- Sco...\f.., SERVICES F -- : ,/ t)':>. s.., ~ / ~ / ~ Sc~v o 20 40 60 '~~4I' ~ I, i I / / ~. u~ 6;~~ " SCALE IN FEET / ~ !; J II / "", - ~ ~ ":-......., ,. _ ~ SPOT ELEVA11ON. l~).. II I ~o t--- /"./-1. / ~ ~ / ,.'# X(gga'o) - PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ~ f..J ~I/ ' - ".., - DAECTION SLWACE DRAHAGE / '\ 1'; ~ COH - CANTLEVEREO OVERHANG I _L ~I/ OH. - OVERI€AD UTUTY L.N: n ! i.r' GfE - CARAGE Fl.OOR El..EV A noN / ~ CV'1t LFE - LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION ~" S8L - SET BACK L.N: ( ;. / ~ NTS - NOT TO SCALE / S is!, i SlOE SETBACKS SHOWN ARE MNMUM I ~ r ! ~Kh' SUB~CT TO BUILDING HEIGHT 'V 7/J. VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY / I t ~ f~ UTLITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE I / ~,ff~. J j PER FELl) LOCATION AND CITY ~(6 /, 0 - ..- PLANS AND ARE APPROxtAA TE I I'" ~ ~UL~OtiS.- l~. I f ~ r-"',7:1f H _ +...-' Ii PR'OPOSED - - - - -- UTLITY - - -I - - II SERVICES 1 I II HI I j ~ Mj I (I II -----------~ll , I , I / BENCHMARK .... \ PROPOSED Lors I /) ~Jf~ V ../lo :~1 Lor 1 - 14500 SF o..J.J ACRE Lor 2 - 15180 SF 0.35 ACRE CONC:' () &i - .---'f .l! ~ ~ LEGAL OESCRPTION: LOT 9, BLOCK 5, TRALEE, HEN~ CO., MN. ADDRESS - 100 BRUNSWICK AVENJE N PlDfJ3-118-21-33-0039 LOT AREA - 29680 SF I 0.68 AC _!t~?:~~ 2..0 SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TITLE OR EASEMENT INf"ORMA TION ( \ i &9~~' LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601. 73rd Avenue North 560-3093 INVOICE NO. 13848 F. B.NO. 256-40 SCALE I" 20' o - DENOTES I RON I I o o ...., ............... ..9 .5 -00 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55428 CAL AND SHARYN DANIELSON &nrul nrl1 ca,rttfttatf ~. 7' &C/T C YCGa.-t/e FENCe C 1~.5 ~~. Poe>C- O.C'7. /?/2c~ ~ ~ 't ~ ~ ~ ~. .~ .<rJ I'.. 'f (J' ~ \j\ '" -.9 I I ! 0 0 \ . (\.\ '~ ~ n I I I I 0 J i -9 ~ a IJ Q ~ <l ~ J 1<D.c::::> \1 I ~ \ OVER.HERQ.n k/fRc.5 "- tv / I 0 I/' I Lv- IJ' / , , I I tv ~ LOT 2. :J I I I I I{\ tJ \ Co7.00 '/RRcc..rq.t-rlR 7e,vc.c ON c::/"vc:- \. Lot 9, Block 5. "TRALEE" We hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and vis- ible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 22nd day of Augu~t 19 84 Signed aymond A. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 6743 The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Wittman. Lisa From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hogeboom, Joe Thursday, January 21,20107:33 AM 'SHELLEY MCDONALD' Grimes, Mark; Wittman, Lisa RE: meeting Jan 25th Shelley, Thank you for sending this email. I'm sorry, but I must have misspoke when I told you my emai!. In any event, I did now receive your email, and I will distribute it to the Planning Commissioners, Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns, Thank you, Joe Hogeboom I City Planner I City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427 I 763-593-8099 I 763-593-8109 (Fax) I 763-593-3968 (TTY) ihogeboom@cI.golden-vallev.mn.us From: SHELLEY MCDONALD [mailto:watsu4you@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:04 PM To: Hogeboom, Joe Subject: FW: meeting Jan 25th Please foreword to Joe His email address did not work when I sent this. Shelley He gave me the email... jhogeboom@ci.goldenvalley.mnus . This email did not reach him and it needs to before Thursday or Friday. From: watsu4you@hotmail.com To: jhogeboom@ci.goldenvalley.mnus Subject: meeting Jan 25th Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000 Joe, We talked today. We live at 105 Brunswick So. I am voting to not divide the lot at 100 Brunswick N. Leave the lot as it is. One house per lot as is. That is my vote. Shelley McDonald 612 889-8886 I am sorry I will not be here for the meeting. Thank-you 1 Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 19, 2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Kevin Knase, Planning Intern Subject: Proposed Revisions to Accessory Structures Requirements Addressing Garden Structures in the Definitions, Single Family (R-1) Zoning District and the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. Currently, Garden Structures are not addressed in the City Code. Garden Structures are pergolas, arbors, or any other structure that is defined as an open-roof of cross rafters that features a wooden or lattice-work frame with a primarily aesthetic purpose. This has come to the attention of city staff as a result of construction of Garden Structures by residents in Golden Valley. For this reason, city staff has elected to make additions to the Definitions, Single Family Residential (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning Districts Accessory Structures sections of the City Code to give clear guidance on this issue. Additions made for Garden Structures include: Location Garden Structures will be allowed in the front yard so long as they meet the following requirements: Setbacks Front Yard: No less than five (5) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. Separation between Except for those Garden Structures attached to the principal Structures Structure or another accessory structure, Garden Structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure - and from any other accessory structure to which it is not attached. Size If a Garden Structure is attached to an accessory structure, the footprint of the two structures shall be included together as one structure. If attached to a principal structure, the footprint shall be calculated as the square footage of only the Garden Structure. Garden Structures shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet in the front yard. 1 Staff recommends amending City Code to allow these changes to be made to the Definitions and Accessory Structures sections of the City Code and requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Attachments Proposed language in Sections 11.03 Definitions, 11.21 Single Family Zoning District (R-1) and Section 11.22 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (5 pages) 2 In Section 11.03 Definitions: 43.5 Garden Structure: A pergola, arbor, or any other structure that is defined as an open-roof of cross rafters that features a wooden or lattice-work frame with a primarily aesthetic purpose. In Section 11.21: Single Family Zoning District (R-l): *Subdivision 12. Accessory Structures Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, accessory structures, shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 zoning district: 1. Location. A Det;Jched ;Jccessor'y' structure sh;J1I be loc;Jted completely to the re;Jr of the princip;J1 structure, unless it is built .....ith frost footings. In th;Jt c;Jse, ;In ;Jccessor'y' structure m;JY be built no closer to the front setb;Jck ;JS the princip;J1 structure. If ;In ;Jddition is built on to ;In existing princip;J1 structure th;Jt ....ould cre;Jte ;J sitU;Jtion where ;In existing g;Jr;Jge or ;Jccessory structure 'Nould not be completely to the re;Jr of the ;Jddition to the princip;J1 structure, the ;Jddition to the princip;J1 structure m;J'y' be built ;Jnd the existing g;Jr;Jge or ;Jccessory structure m;Jy rem;Jin ;Jnd be considered conforming ;JS long ;JS there is ;Jt le;Jst ten (10) feet of sep;Jr;Jtion bet.....een the existing princip;J1 structure with the ;Jddition ;Jnd the existing g;Jr;Jge or ;Jccessory structure. Additions m;JY be m;Jde to the existing g;Jr;Jge or ;Jccessory structure ;JS long ;JS the ten (10) feet of sep;Jr;Jtion C;Jn be met. Except for detached accessory structures built with frost footings, and detached garden structures, any accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty- five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. Garden structures are excluded from this and shall be located no less than five (5) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 1 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures sh~11 be loc~ted no less th~n ten (10) feet from ~ny princip~1 structure ~nd from ~ny other ~ccessory structure. Except for garden structures attached to the principal structure or another accessory structure, accessory structures including without limitation detached or stand alone garden structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. A garden structure attached to a principal structure must be completely to the rear of the principal structure, and must be located no less than ten (10) feet from any other accessory structure. A garden structure attached to another accessory structure must be located no less than ten (10) feet from the principle structure or any other accessory structure to which it is not attached. 5. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from an alley. B. Height Limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate. C. Provision for garage. No building permit shall be issued for a single family dwelling not having a two (2) stall garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of the application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future two (2) stall (minimum) garage. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 E. Each property is limited to a total of one thousand (1,000) square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, afl€I. greenhouses-;-, gazebos, and garden structures. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. No one (1) detached accessory structure may be larger than eight hundred (800) square feet in area and any accessory structure over one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area requires a building permit. For purposes of calculating the square footage of any garden structure attached to another accessory structure, for the limitations in this section, the footprint of the attached garden structure shall be included with the accessory structure to which it is attached as if the attached accessory structures were one. For purposes of calculating the square footage of any garden structure attached to a principal structure the 2 footprint of the attached garden structure shall be calculated by determining the footprint of the attached garden structure alone. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. (See Subdivision 4(A)(1)). Garden structures shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area in the front yard. G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory buildings shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory buildings. (See Subdivision 14.) 1. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 In Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District: 1. Location. A det<lched <lccessory structure sh<lll be loc<lted completely to the re<lr of the princip;:J1 structure, unless it is built vv'ith frost footings. In th;:Jt c<lse, <In <lccessory structure m<lY be built no closer to the front setb;:Jck ;:Jnd side setb;:Jck ;:JS the princip<ll structure. If ;:In <lddition is built on to <In existing princip<ll structure th;:Jt would cre;:Jte ;:J situ<ltion 'v\'here 3 <In existing g<lr<lge or <lccessory structure would not be completely to the re<lr of the <lddition to the princip<ll structure, the <lddition to the princip<ll structure m<lY be built <lnd the existing g<lr<lge or <lccessory structure m<lY rem<lin <lnd be considered conforming <lS long <lS there is <It le<lst ten (10) feet of sep<lr<ltion between the existing princip<ll structure \Nith the <lddition <lnd the existing g<lr<lge or <lccessory structure. Additions m<lY be m<lde to the existing g<lr<lge or <lccessory structure <lS long <lS the ten (10) feet of sep<lr<ltion C<ln be met. Except for detached accessory structures built with frost footings, and detached garden structures, any accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2. Front Setback. Accessory structures sh<lll be loc<lted no less th;:m thirty five (35) feet from the front property line <llong <l street right of W<lY line. Except for detached accessory structures built with frost footings and detached garden structures, any other accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty-five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. Detached accessory structures built with frost footings may be built no closer to the front setback and side set back than the principal structure. Detached garden structures may be located no less than five (5) feet from the front property line along a street right-of- way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between Structures. Accessory structures sh<lll be loc<lted no less th<ln ten (10) feet from <lny princip<ll structure <lnd from <In,! other <lccessory structure. Except for garden structures attached to the principal structure or another accessory structure, accessory structures including without limitation detached or stand along garden structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. A garden structure attached to a principal structure must be completely to the rear of the principal structure, and must be located no less than ten (10) feet from any other accessory structure. A garden structure attached to another accessory structure must be located no less than ten (10) feet from the principle structure or any other accessory structure to which it is not attached. 4 B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. C. Garage Construction Required. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. Single family dwelling units shall require a two (2) stall garage. D. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhousesL aft€i-gazebos-;-, and garden structures shall be limited in size to a total of six hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. Garden structures shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area in the front yard. For purposes of calculating the square footage of any garden structure attached to another accessory structure, for the limitations in this section, the footprint of the attached garden structure shall be included with the accessory structure to which it is attached as if the attached accessory structures were one. For purposes of calculating the square footage of any garden structure attached to a principal structure the footprint of the attached garden structure shall be calculated by determining the footprint of the attached garden structure alone. E. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures. F. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements as accessory structures. G. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 5