The URL can be used to link to this page

04-24-00 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, April 24, 2000 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - April 1 0, 2000 II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment No.1 to Kings Valley PUD No. 13 Applicant: Kings Valley Homeowners Association Address: 2100-2318 Mendelssohn Avenue North Purpose: Amend the P.U.D. Permit to allow for future expansions onto the existing dwelling units with approval by the Kings Valley Homeowners Association and review by the City's Building Official through the building permit process III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Language of the Zoning Code Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: Allow by Conditional Use Permit in the Institutional (1 through 4) zoning district Essential Services - Class II -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business VI. Adjournment l . " e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 10, 2000 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota on Monday, April 10, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, McAleese, Shaffer, Hoffman, Groger, and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Heidi Reinke. I. Approval of Minutes - March 13, 2000 McAleese noted an error on page 13. The sentence, "He asked if there would be any special requirements for obtaining the asphalt imposed." The word "obtaining" should be replaced with "maintaining". Groger noted an error found in the last paragraph on page 5, beginning with "Sailor asked...". The comment was stated by Mr. McEnroe, not Mr. Sailor. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion was carried unanimously to approve the March 13, 2000 minutes with the above corrections. e II. Election of Officers Chair Pentellisted the current staff positions: Chair Pentel, Vice Chair Shaffer and Secretary Groger. Pentel said she would be willing to remain Chair of the Commission. Shaffer said he would like to remain Vice Chair. Groger invited other members to fill the Secretary position for the next term if interested. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to keep the existing slate of officers. III. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 830 Boone Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Amend the use of the subject property from Light Industrial to Industrial IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning e Applicant: Interkey Properties Address: 830 Boone Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 10, 2000 Page 2 e Purpose: Rezone the subject property from Light Industrial to Industrial Dan Olson stated that the City of Golden Valley is requesting that the 3.5 acre site receive a General Land Use Plan Map Amendment to change the Land Use from Light Industrial to Industrial. This amendment application is being submitted along with a request for rezoning of the subject property from Light Industrial to Industrial. The rezoning is requested in order to accommodate some land uses that would not be permitted within the current Light Industrial zoning district designation. He said he would present the Land Use Plan Map Amendment and then the zoning request. Olson stated that Airborne Express is the current occupant of the site, and would be moving to another site because they have outgrown the building. Prior to Airborne Express, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company used the building to repair their service vehicles. The applicant is hoping to lease the site to a tenant that would use the building for automotive uses, such as an auto body repair garage or an auto showroom. This type of use is neither a permitted nor a conditional use under the current Light Industrial zoning district designation, but is a conditional use in the proposed Industrial zoning district. Olson said Staff is recommending the Land Use Plan Map be amended to Industrial for this site, now guided for a Light Industrial use. This Amendment would be compatible with the Industrial land uses to the north and west, and would provide for more varied uses of the subject property. Olson received one complaint letter from a property owner to the north. The property owner was opposed to the rezoning as it is inconsistent with the neighboring area. The area around the site is being used for office and warehouse uses. The property owner felt that the industrial uses would be much heavier than those that exist in the area. e Pentel asked Olson to show the zoning map. Olson showed the zoning map and described the area. The existing area is zoned Light Industrial. The areas to the north and west are currently zoned Industrial. Eck commented that not much background information was provided. He wanted to clarify that the owner of the property is Interkey Properties. He inquired if the current tenant would be moving out in November 2000. Olson confirmed that the owner is Interkey Properties. The lease for the current tenant would end in November 2000. He added that the current tenant is proposing to move out in the next few months and a new tenant could possibly move in within the next six months. Pentel commented that if the request for "upzoning" the area to Industrial were approved, many different types of uses could occupy the building. Under the Industrial zoning, many uses are acceptable, such as those listed under the Light Industrial zoning requirements or other zoning districts. She expressed concern there was not a compelling reason for requesting the rezoning. Olson stated that the main reason to rezone the area is due to the destructiveness of the Light Industrial zoning district. The applicant would like an auto related use to occupy the A building. Those uses are considered conditional uses in the Industrial zoning district. By .. rezoning to Industrial, the applicant would be given the option to have an auto related use e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 1 a, 2000 Page 3 move into the building. Olson noted that the applicant would like to consider such uses as an auto show room or an auto body repair. McAleese said that the property has been zoned Light Industrial since the building was constructed. Olson concurred. McAleese commented that for 16 years or longer, the Comprehensive Plan has assumed that this property would be Light Industrial. He agreed with Pentel in questioning the compelling reason for this request. The Commission frequently receives this type request relating to properties, but the requests are not necessarily approved. Olson said that staff believes the request to rezone is consistent with the area. In the past, the site has been used for auto uses; and therefore, it does not seem an anomaly to request that the site be used again for auto uses. McAleese commented that there is a possibility that the building could be demolished and a heavy industrial building be erected on the site, if the zoning were changed. Although this is only an example, there remains the possibility of such a thing happening. The areas to the east and south of the site are also zoned Light Industrial. McAleese inquired whether staff foresees that these areas would be rezoned to Industrial. e Grimes presented the history of the building for the committee. The building was built with permission of the City for auto related uses. It has inflammable waste traps in it. Northwestern Bell used the building for the repair of their vehicles. In 1992, the zoning code was amended to allow "truck/van terminals" for the new tenant, a delivery company. The conditional use allowed the delivery service and storage of their vehicles, which numbered approximately 50 to 60. Grimes commented that the applicant would like to market the building for auto related uses, as they pertain to the functions of the building. The building does not really match the Light Industrial zoning district, as it was built to accommodate an auto-related use. Two options remain, rezoning to Industrial or converting the building to fit the Light Industrial code. Grimes read from the City code requirements for Industrial and Light Industrial zoning districts. He said that anything allowed in the Light Industrial district is allowed in the Industrial zoning district. Industrial zoning allows general manufacturing uses, including compounding, assembly, and treatment of articles and materials. Metal fabrication and assembly is also allowed (some metal fabrication is allowed in Light Industrial, but not sheet metal). The Industrial zoning district also allows building material yards. Both zoning districts allow recycling centers. Light Industrial does not permit automobile repair uses that the building is most appropriate for. McAleese stated his concern for rezoning. There are many buildings that were designed for specific uses, but are not being used for those specific purposes. Should the City rezone based upon the type of building? . Rasmussen agreed with McAleese's concerns. She was concerned with spot zoning. The building is not marketable to as wide a range of people under the Light Industrial zoning. It causes some concern if the property were rezoned simply to accommodate the type of building. Minutes of the .Golden Valley Planning Commission April 10, 2000 Page 4 e Pentel commented that the Commission should vote separately on the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment and the Rezoning. Richard Huffman, Managing Partner for Interkey Properties and owner of the building, presented his request for rezoning. He stated that the building was constructed in 1972 for Northwestern Bell, as a special use building. It was used to store and repair company vehicles and to install mobile phones in public vehicles. It is a large garage building equipped with firetraps and large garage doors. At the time that the building was constructed, these automotive uses were allowed under the City Code. In 1990, Northwestern Bell moved out of the building. Since it was built specifically for automotive uses, it remained vacant for 2 years before a new tenant moved in. Airborne Express then moved into the space. Currently, Airborne Express has outgrown the building and will be moving out in November 2000. He added that it is difficult to market the building under the existing Light Industrial zoning. Many companies that might be able to use the building are not interested due to the restrictive zoning. Bruce Bermel, planner and spokesperson with the Chase Company, said that he was involved with the building when Airborne Express moved in. He is responsible for finding a new tenant at this time. On November 1, 2000, the building will become vacant. The building is a unique and unusual garage building, designed for automotive related uses. The sloped floors and trench drains are for snow melting off of vehicles in the winter. Inflammable waste traps and extensive air exhaust systems exist in the building. He is a concerned that the present zoning would limit the future utility of this building. _ Bermel stated that the area to the north is zoned Industrial. Currently there are assembly type uses in that area. It would not be practical for the building to be demolished. The new user might have to make many changes to the building if they cannot use the trench drains and other special parts of the building. Groger asked the applicant to explain the show room use. Bermel commented that he was unaware of this proposed use. It does not make sense in this type of building, consisting of 12,000 sq.ft. of office space and 26,000 sq.ft. of garage in the building. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing for the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment and rezoning; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Eck stated that the areas to the north and west are zoned Industrial. These areas are not currently being used as Industrial uses, but rather might be acceptable under Light Industrial zoning. He asked Grimes to comment on his statement. Grimes said the warehouse building across the street is used for offices. Other buildings consist of a printing company, a food brokerage, an industrial warehouse, and others. All the buildings include some office space. There are few manufacturing uses in the area. These uses might be allowed under the Light Industrial zoning requirements. Pentel stated that she cannot support the amendment of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment. It might be better for the applicant to acquire a special exception from the Council instead of rezoning the area. Rasmussen said that it is probable that the Council would give the exception. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 10, 2000 Page 5 Grimes added that the Light Industrial zoning district's Conditional Use Permit allows public garages for repairing and storing of motor vehicles. Industrial zoning allows auto body repair shops, auto body repair, painting, and conditioning. Other uses it permits include, car washes, auto sales and showrooms. He is unsure what the difference is between auto repair and auto body work. It would be better for the City to redefine and clarify the code, specifically the meaning and difference of auto repair and auto body repair. McAleese agreed that the City should reevaluate the zoning code and then have the applicant reapply within the new code definition. If the applicant has a use that is permitted under the existing language, then they should present it to staff. He suggested that the Planning Commission review the zoning code and redefine the language. Shaffer agreed with Grimes and McAleese. If this area were allowed a rezoning, then the area to the east should be rezoned and the adjacent properties. He is concerned that rezoning only this portion of land could cause problems for rezoning in the future. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial of the request to amend the General Land Use Plan Map of the property, located at 830 Boone Avenue North, from Light Industrial to Industrial. e MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial of the request to rezone the property, located at 830 Boone Avenue North, from Light Industrial to Industrial. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Review of the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Don Taylor, City of Golden Valley Finance Department, presented the review of 2000-2004 Capital Improvement Project. The CIP, as presented, is in the same format as of previous years. The Planning Commission asked for an evaluation of past years in comparison to projects for this CIP. Taylor said he would pass this information out. Taylor said that one high priority area to consider is the storm sewer section. It includes several projects that are a high priority in the surface water management plan. These projects will be financed by an increase in the quarterly storm sewer charge on the utility bills for all the residents and businesses in the City. The first bills with those increases just went out. Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, was also present to answer any questions. e Pentel said the memo sent by City Manager William Joynes to the City Council, states that the CIP should be viewed as a vehicle to accomplish the goals set in the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in November of 1992. She inquired if the City has been revising the Comprehensive Plan since that time. McAleese confirmed that various sections have been revised. Pentel said the date in the CIP needed to be clarified because several sections, such as Storm Water Management and Housing, have been revised. Taylor stated that he would correct the date. Pentel added that the Golden Valley Open Space System Map does not show the public access on Sweeney Lake. She would like to see it in the CIP. Taylor said that it is part of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 1 0, 2000 Page 6 e the system. He will address that concern and add the Sweeney Lake Park, trail and canoe launch to the in the next CIP. Rasmussen asked a question about Enterprise funds. Are these funds held in their own account? If there are funds left over at the end of the year, are they transferred into the general fund? Taylor said that, by law, an Enterprise Fund has to be set up in its own account. They maintain a separate set of books (balance sheet, income statement). If money is left over at the end of the year, the money stays in the fund and will be used for emergencies or future improvements. The golf course fund (being so successful) does make a transfer of about $85,000 to the general fund to help finance other recreation programs. Water and sewer stands on its own due to the need for replacement over the years. Pentel referred to page 12 of the CI P. She said the working capital is provided by operations, which generate a certain amount of money. The expenditures seem to be more than the amount that is brought in for revenue. Taylor indicated that in years when there is a deficit the deficit is financed from the Golf Course reserve. Hoffman inquired if the City carries extra insurance for the driving range. Taylor said that the City carries insurance that covers everything, including the golf course. For most operations of the City, there is a statutory limit of liability, set at $750,000. But, there is no limit for places like the golf course. e Groger stated that most funds accrue interest, but some are not shown. He asked why Brookview does not seem to be accruing any interest. Taylor said that he preparesthis.item differently as found on page 12. The Brookview interest is included in the working capital from operations. He thinks that since the interest is becoming more significant, they should change the format. Rasmussen inquired if there is a separate category for public safety. She asked if their needs were figured into the equipment category. Taylor said that she was correct. Most needs are found in the vehicles and equipment category, which is projected over a five-year program. The City's Public Safety Director has talked aboutthe 800 MHz system. At this point, he is not sure how the City will approach this issue or the timet~ble for it. Pentel said that the Capital Improvement Fund, on page 8 & 20, stated that it is an unwritten City policy to use these funds only for public works purposes. She asked Taylor to explain this policy. Taylor said that this fund has had a long history. It was created early in the City's development, 1950s-1960s. Bonds were sold to put in water and sewer lines and assess them. Since then, the assessments have been paid off. The bonds issued were for 2%, 3%, and 4%. The City was able to reinvest those special investment prepayments at a higher rate and build up some funds. Eck inquired about streets as found on page 133. The funding for redoing the LaurellWinnetka intersection is scheduled for 2002. He asked if the funding might be available before that time, if it is approved by the Council. Taylor said the plans might not be available any sooner. The funding might be available in 2001, but not any sooner. e Clancy said that the date was estimated at the time construction would begin. The plans that are being considered now and the required property acquisitions might take that length . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 10, 2000 Page 7 of time to complete. The City told the committee that they would look at other temporary options for the meantime, although the committee needs to present those ideas. Hoffman received a notice about the Xenia project. He inquired if the money has already been allotted or if it is included in the CIP. Taylor said that it was mostly finished in 1999. This year, the City will finish the landscaping and some work along Turners. The funding \/lias already allotted in 1999, therefore it was not included in the CIP. Hoffman said that there is talk of additional building near Meadowbrook School. He assumes that the City has allotted some funding for it. He noted that funding does not necessarily show up in this funding forecast. He asked Taylor to explain. Taylor said that the CIP usually does not include HRA projects except for public improvements, such as roads and water and sewer lines. Pentel commented that on page 22, she was happy to see all the various storm water projects that the City will undertake. She inquired about the location of Culvert SS#2. Taylor said that the culvert is located on Bassett Creek off of Golden Valley Road. The culvert is aging and is not the size that is needed. e Groger inquired about the Building Fund as found on page 87. He asked Taylor or Clancy to address the addition of the street maintenance building. Clancy said she cannot remember the square footage of the addition. The plan is to create a common office space for supervisors, and a training and meeting room for maintenance workers. The expansion allows for office and meeting room space. Shaffer commented that the addition might be approximately 5,000 sq.ft. Clancy agreed that the square footage may be approximately 3,000 to 5,000 sq.ft. Taylor said that they are planning for improvements to the cable TV room, new sound card, mixer and main frame power supply. They plan to upgrade the Chambers for power point presentations, including the computers and overheads for the presentations. He said that at this time, new chairs were not included in the plan. McAleese inquired about the Emergency Vehicle Preemption System, on page 127. It provides for the emergency sensors on street signals. He asked where these were planning to be placed. Taylor said that it is a 2-3 year program, put into place last year. A number of major intersections have them or will get them. Clancy said that the City prioritized the locations. The City has worked collaboratively with New Hope, St. Louis Park, Plymouth, and the State Highway systems. Currently, the City is on the second year of the program. Shaffer asked if the City received State Aid funds for the program. Taylor responded that they are taking some State Aid funds for the program. If the signal is on a State Aid intersection, then the State Aid funds can be used. e Groger asked if there were funds for constructing or maintaining sidewalks. Pentel said that the City has $50,000 a year for sidewalks. Taylor said that there is not a specific sidewalk program in the CIP. Most sidewalks related to other projects; and therefore, anything relating to sidewalks, within a project, have been kept within the project listing. Groger said the sidewalk committee is meeting this week concerning an area of sidewalk on the east side of Douglas, south of Duluth Street. He inquired what funds would be used to maintain Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 10, 2000 Page 8 . areas such as these independent projects. Taylor said that the City would look at alternate sources of funding for such projects. Groger questioned the stream bank stabilization of Bassett Creek on page 143. He said several neighbors are affected by this. Many people do stabilization work on their own. He asked if the City could notify the affected neighbors, so that they would not do work prior to work done by the City. Taylor said that in Year 2000, there is money allocated for inventory of the stream condition. Through this study the City will assess what work must be done and on which section of Bassett Creek. Clancy said that inventory is being done as a request by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. In the City newsletter, there will be information about this community process. The Commission is asking the public to get involved. If there are areas of erosion, the community needs to alert the Commission. The inventory will assess the areas of high priority or some areas where the City needs to do public education. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Capital Improvement Plan for 2000-2004 as presented due to its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. V. Reports on Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other Meetings e Groger said he attended the March 21 City Council meeting. The property located at Laurel and Pennsylvania Avenue was discussed. There was no opposition and it was approved by the Council. Grimes said that AI Lundstrom, the City's Environmental Coordinator, met with the applicants. He suggested adding some trees to the plan. Hoffman interjected that he was supposed to attend the April 4 City Council meeting, but was unable to attend. He received notes regarding the issues discussed at the meeting. The Allianz project along 1-394 was discussed. The project is slated to go forward. The Allianz employee work schedule is flexible to minimize the traffic coming and going from the site. Hoffman asked Pentel for clarification concerning the agenda for the HRA meeting on April 11. He asked if the HRA would be voting on the Olympic Printing site located in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area. Pentel said the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to prepare a land use study for the Olympic Printing site. Grimes commented that the City wanted to buy the property so that it remains consistent with redevelopment in the area. It will require amendment to redevelopment and the Comprehensive Plan. The City will make a recommendation to the H.R.A. for the site. They will not look for developers until they get the land use study back from the Planning Commission. e Hoffman asked the meaning ofuupzoning". He said that the property along 1-394 would be upzoned if the Planning Commission strongly urges that it be approved. Grimes e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 10, 2000 Page 9 commented that the Commission has looked at the development along 1-394. Upzoning allows uses on the site. Hoffman inquired about the Honeywell property along Douglas Drive. Pentel commented that the variance request was presented at the BZA. A building was proposed for the corner of Sandburg and Douglas Drive. She said the project would be located on a large amount of property that Honeywell would like to sell. Pentel noted the request was denied by the BZA because of the huge infringement of parking into the front setback along Douglas Drive. Grimes said that if Honeywell is looking to sell off any excess land it does not need and if they do not sell this piece right now, it could be sold later. Pentel said the Area B proposal was on the March 21 City Council agenda. She noted that a slightly different plan for parking and housing was presented. Grimes added that he talked with the representative from Rottlund and the plan would remain the same as what the Planning Commission reviewed. The plan noted cut outs along Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue for additional parking. Grimes said that although there would not be as much parking as the Planning Commission thought that they should have, the Council felt strongly about the issue and maintaining the integrity of the project. e Pentel maintains her view that the residents should have some open space for grilling. Grimes said that he had not received a direct answer on the grilling issue. He will take note that the Planning Commission feels strongly about creating a grilling area. Hoffman inquired about the affordable Housing proposed for the "sheriff's site". Grimes said that this topic would be addressed at the HRA meeting tomorrow night, April 11. He said the Council is considering affordable housing for the property. One concern is about maintaining the natural area and the many trees on the site. Pentel noted that the site used to be a shooting range and that Hennepin County wants to sell the excess property that is not being used. She said there are concerns about losing the natural area. McAleese and Pentel said they would be attending the HRA meeting. VI. Other Business Pentel said that each member received a copy of the attendance for the past six months. The attendance was addressed and reviewed. Grimed told the Commission that they should consider reviewing and updating the City's zoning code. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. e Richard Groger, Secretary e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: e . April 20, 2000 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Design Plan Plan for Amendment No.1. to Kings Valley PUD No. 13, Board of Directors, King's Valley Homeowners Association, Applicant The Kings Valley Homeowners Association (KVHA) has requested an amendment to the Kings Valley PUD No. 13. This amendment would allow for certain building additions to be made to the existing living units. At the current time, the footprint to each ofthe units cannot be expanded unless the PUD is amended. Kings Valley was one of the early townhome developments in the City. The PUD permit was issued in June 1974. There are a total of 154 units. The structures are each two-unit buildings. There are five or six different unit designs. I am attaching a copy of the plan for Kings Valley that shows the different housing units and layout. Access to Kings Valley is only from Mendelssohn Avenue North. Each of the units is located on a private street. At the request of one of the homeowners, the KVHA has requested that the City of Golden Valley amend the PUD permit to allow certain additions to be made to the townhome units without going through the PUD amendment process. This has been an on-going issue for the past several years with Kings Valley. (There have been other homeowners that have also wanted to put on additions. The City has permitted a couple of small additions, such as decks. However, staff told the KVHA a couple years ago that no more additions to the units would be allowed until it they were addressed through the PUD process.) Attached is a copy of a resolution of the KVHA that outlines the conditions under which an extension to a townhome may be made. The following is staff comments on each of the conditions: 1. No extension shall be permitted without prior written approval of the Board of Directors of the Kings Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. - The membership of the KVHA are representatives of owners within the town home development. I would like to add that the KVHA Board of Directors must send notice of the Board Meeting to the adjacent and surrounding property owners within Kings Valley. This would give the nearby homeowners the opportunity to express their concerns. . e 2. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between a housing unit and any adjoining street to be less than the distance that exists prior to adding the extension - Because the existing setback from the private streets is minimal, the staff recommended that this condition be included. This condition would require that all extensions be to the rear or side of the units. In some cases, it may be impossible to expand a unit because of the location of the unit adjacent to more than one street. The KVHA knows that all units may not qualify for an addition under their proposed conditions. 3. No extension shall be allowed that would cause any part of a housing unit to be closer than 3 feet to any property line - This is the minimum requirement established by the City's building code. City Building Official Gary Johnson and I have reviewed this condition. He feels comfortable with this requirement. Attached is a copy of a survey of one of the lots in Kings Valley. It indicates that the lots are not much larger than the building footprint and that the area where an addition may be placed as per the KVHA proposed rules are limited. Within Kings Valley, that area that is not owned by the homeowners is common space controlled by the KVHA as indicated on the attached plat map for Kings Valley. 4. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between any part of the extension and the common wall of the abutting housing unit to be less than 8 feet - This condition protects the adjoining property owner by not allowing any addition to come any closer than 8 feet to the common wall. This makes sense because ifthe addition was too close to the adjoining property, the view from the adjoining unit could be impaired. 5. Applications for permission to build an extension shall include drawings of the proposed extension and a certified property survey prepared by a registered surveyor - The survey is necessary in order to determine the exact location of the existing unit on the lot. As stated above, the lots are small and the units take up a large portion of each of the lots. The survey would be required as part of the building permit process. This condition should be changed to state that the survey must be licensed in the State of Minnesota. The condition should add that any extension to buildings would require a building permit from the City of Golden Valley. Staff has worked with the KVHA to develop these 5 conditions. The City staff agrees that this is a reasonable process to allow for minor building additions in Kings Valley without going through the 3 to 4 month procedure to amend the PUD. Due to the layout of the existing units, the size of the proposed additions, that meet the conditions proposed by the KVHA, is limited. Since the KVHA already has architectural control over any additions to the units, it makes good sense to allow the homeowners association to have control over these additions. The KVHA does not expect to get many of these requests for extensions. Attached are the plans submitted by Peter Hannon for an extension on his unit at 2314 English Circle. In anticipation of the City approving the PUDamendment to allow additions with approval of the KVHA, he has had a survey prepared that indicates the location of the existing unit on the lot and a site plan and drawings of e 2 e e the proposed addition. The proposed addition meets the proposed conditions of the KVHA for extensions to the units. (The proposed survey indicates that the existing roof overhang comes to within 2.3 ft. of the property line. This is a permitted encroachment into a setback area.) Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Amendment No. .1, Kings Valley, PUD No. 13. This amendment would be a simple language change to the existing PUD permit. No alterations to the site plan would be necessary. This amendment would allow certain additions to be added to existing units in Kings Valley if the following conditions are met. The City staff has added the portions that are bolded: 1. No extension shall be permitted without prior written approval of the Board of Directors of the Kings Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. The KVHA Board must notify adjacent and abutting property owners of the request and allow those property owners to be heard before the KVHA Board prior to a decision on the extension. 2. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between a housing unit and any adjoining street to be less than the distance that exists prior to adding the extension. 3. No extension shall be allowed that would cause any part of the housing unit to be closer than 3 feet to a property line. 4. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between any part of the extension and the common wall. of the abutting housing unit to less than 8 feet. 5. Applications for permission to build an extension shall include drawing of the proposed extension and a certified property survey prepared by a surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota. All building extension would require a building permit from the City of Golden Valley. The building permit application would require a survey and resolution from the KVHA Board of Directors approving the extension. Attachments: . Location Map . Resolution of the Kings Valley Homeowners Association . Original P.U.D. Permit . Portion of Half-Section Map . Site Layout · Materials submitted by Peter Hannon (6 pages) e 3 e a- ~ . """;;- '3 ::c e e :1:~. >. <( j }1 en U) ~ Officers 1999-2000 Jerry Robinson President 612-797-9900 FAX 612-797-7454 info@innovationmall.com Jeff Go1dish Vice President and Maintenance Chair 612-546-5778 jeffcindv@aol.com Bob Reber Treasurer 612-944-2559 FAX 612-944-2559 bobreber@aol.com Ath Stelzmiller ~retary 612-545-1487 keith _stelzmiller@udlp.com Cities Management, Inc. Property Manager 612-381-8600 FAX 612-381-8601 Emergency Phone 612-392-4466 It Kings Valley Homeowners Association RESOLVED that the Board of Directors ofthe Kings Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. approved by a majority vote on this day, March 30, 2000, to request that the City of Golden revise the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Kings Valley as follows: The building of any extension onto any home in Kings Valley shall be in accordance with the following: 1. No extension shall be permitted without prior written approval of the Board of Directors of the Kings Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. 2. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between a housing unit and any adjoining street to be less than the distance that exists prior to adding the extension. 3. No extension shall be allowed that would cause any part of a housing unit to be closer than 3 feet to any property line. 4. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between any part of the extension and the common wall of the abutting housing unit to less than 8 feet. 5. Applications for permission to build an extension shall include drawings of the proposed extension and a certified property survey prepared by a registered surveyor. Attest: , /_~::: " ~ A//~~ - Jerry obinson, President Kings Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. .3/J/~o Date "t . e -- '. . . . City Council Approval: June 3, 1974 P.U.D. # 13 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA USE PERMIT for Planned Unit Development ProJect Name: King's Valley (P.U.D. #13) 2100 - 2318 Mendelssohn Avenue North Address: Legal Description: That part of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 30, Township 118 Range 21 lying South of the North 60 rods thereof and North of Lakeview Heights, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (King's Valley Block 1 Lots 1 - 154) Applicant: Address: Cheyenne Land Company 823 Old Settlers Trail, Hopkins, Minnesota Owner (if different from applicant): Richard Neslund Address 823 Old Settlers Trail, Hopkins, Minnesota Zoning District: Residential Permitted Uses: 1. All uses permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts and subject to the applicable regulations contained in the Municipal Code and further subject to the conditions of this Special Use Permit; and 2. A planned unit development for two family residential, accessory parking, open green space, and others as specifically noted on the attached approved development plans, dated 7/)<:;;/7'1. marked with the file and permit number and duly signed by . the Building Inspector " .. ~ . ~ e e e . . . . Special Conditions or Restrictions as Imposed: All permitted uses shall be subject to the following special conditions or restrictions as imposed by the City Council: General 1. 'This PUO Permit shall become null and void if construction (framing over foundation) has not commenced within 360 days following issuance of this permit unless a written request for extension has been received and approved by the City Council. 2. All construction shall be in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Golden Valley except as ,mOdified herein. 3. Single family homes or other uses permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts shall not be developed except in the event that said uses are listed as permitted 1n the special use permit or in the event that the special use permtt is modified or cancelled in whole or in part by action of the City Council. 4. Effect of Minimum Area Requirements on Conveyed lots or Building Sites. In the event any real property in the approved PUD permi tis conveyed in total or in part the buyers thereof shall be bound by the provisions of the PUD Permit and the General Development Plan constituting a part thereof: provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to create non-conforming lots, building sites, buildings or uses by virtue of any such conveyance of a lot, building, site building or part of the development created pursuant to and in conformance with the PUD Permit. Subsequent structural additions or alterations may be made provided the proviSions of the PUD Permit, this Ordinance and other applicable Ordinances are adhered to. 5. Any requests for major deviation from the approved plans shall require a public hearing and consideration by the City Council. 6. Where there are particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the application of the strict letter of the ~onditions of the Special Use Permit, an appeal may be made and a variance may be granted as p,rovided for in the municipal code of the City of Golden Valley. COMPONENTS a. land Use Component Description: A land Use Component shall consist of a map or maps, setting forth the distribution, location and extent of the acres of land devoted to each category of land use proposed as part of the General Plan of Development. Such uses may include single family residential, two family residential, mixed types of residential, neighborhood retail shopping facilities, office facilities, service facilities, education, religious, recreation, public and semi-public facilities; or other categories of public or private uses of land. Said Component shall also contain a'descriptive statement of objectives, principles and standards used in its formulation. Requirements: 1. Only these uses 1 is ted herein as permitted and/or as i ndi cated on the approved plans shall be provided for on the site. 2. land uses permi tted shall be located, constructed, occupied, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this permit and approved plans made part of this Permit. 3. Major and significant deviations from the approved plans shall require an amended permit prior to issuance of building permits. t" _b. Ci rculati on Component Description: A Circulation Component shall consist of a map or maps, setting forth the general locati on and extent of all transportati on facil ities proposed as part of the General Plan of Development. Such faci lities inc1 ude major and local thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, heliports, and the separations, divided roads; left-turn lanes, and such other matters as may be related to the Land Use Component. Said Ci rcul ati on Component shall also contain a descripti ve statement of objecti ves, principles and standards used for its formulation. Requi rements : 1. Plans and specifications for any access drives, private or public streets, or utilities must be approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall also supply the City Engineer with any other data, plans, or as-builts that he may require. 2. Adequate right-of-way as requested by the County, City Engineer, or other governmental agency shall be dedicated as requested for any and all public ri ght-of-way needs. 3. Easements, trai ls, or other provis ions for pedestri an or other non-motori zed circulation or access shall be as requested by the City and indicated on the approved plans. c. Population Component -DescriPtion: A Population Component shall contain a descripti ve statement of the standards of popUlation density and building intensity for the various proposed land uses, incl udin g estimates of future populati on characteris ti cs and change wi thin the planned community correlated with the other Components of the General Plan of Development. The supporting data shall incl ude, but not be 1 imited to, eWell ing (housing) units per acre for the various residential uses proposed; and square footage by type for the various non-residential facilities, including sufficient data to calculate traffic generation, parking requirements, water consumption, se\'rage needs and the necessary capacity of related utilities and services traditionally rendered by public or private organizations for a population of such size as is projected for the completed planned development. Requi rerrents: 1. The nurrber of o''1elling units by type (nurrber of bedrooms) shall be as speCifically authori zed and noted on the approved plans. 2. Each approved eWe1ling unit Shall be occupied by only one family as defined by zoning. regul ati 00$. d. Subdivision Design Component Description: A Subdivision Design Component shall contain a descriptive statement of the prinCiples governing the proposed subdivision of land, including lot design afor various proposed land uses. This Component shall be in sufficient detail so -that it can serve as the basis for determining the conformity of any site plan to the General Pl an of Development. -3- . t t. e Requi rements: 1. No part of the development shall be sold or otherwise transferred from single ownership except under terms of an approved subdivision.- 2. The common areas, nor any portion therof, shall be sold or otherwise transferred from control of approved Home Owners Associations except as may be permitted by an amendment to this Permit. e e e. Services and Facilities Component Description: A Services and Facilities Component shall contain a map or maps setting forth the general location and extent of any and all existing and proposed systerrs for sevla.ge, domesti c water supply and distribution, refuse di sposa 1, drainage, local utilities and rights-of-way, easements, facilities and appurtenances necessary therefor. Said Component shall also contain a descriptive statement setting forth objectives, principles and standards used for its formulation, as well asa detailed statement describing the proposed ownership, method of operation, and maintenance of each such service and facility. Requi rements : (Recreation use areas, buildings, common open space and other joint facilities). Certain land areas and structures are provided within the planned unit development. for private recreational use or as service facilities. The CMner of such land and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City to assure the continued operation and maintenance to a predetermined reasonable standard. These common areas may be placed under ownership of one of the following depending which is more appropriate and as may be approved by the City Council. a. Dedicated to public where a community-wide use would be anticipated. b. Dedicated to public as a special assessment district or easement. c. landlord control. d. landCMners Association, provided all of the foll~~ing conditions are met: I. The landowners Association must be established prior to any sale. II. Membership must be mandatory for each owner, and any successive buyer. III. The open space restrictions must be permanent, not for a given period of years . IV.' The Association must be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and the maintenance of residential and other facilities, except as modified by the City Counci 1. V. landCMners must pay their pro rata share of the cost and the assessment levied by the Association that can become a lien on the property. VI. The Association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet Changed needs. e. It is recognized that a portion of the General Area shall be maintained by the King's Valley Association. l.' Responsibilities will include: a) Mai ntenance of the Storm Water Storage Areas. b) Common use of the Swimmi ng Pool and Green Areas. c) Open Space Easements and Use. d) City involvement in long-term property and facilities maintenance. e) Others. All such matters shall be incorporated in suitable legal documents and be made part of this PUD Permit. 1. _Jl_ ~ ._ 1 e e e , 2. Landscaping shall be properly maintained and replaced if damaged or lost by winterkill, drouQht, or other causes. !_ VJ~ 3. Easements for utilities or other purposes shall be provided as requested by the City. Provisions for maintenance of utilities and open green space and water storage areas shall be as required by the City. 4. Provis ions for sanita ry sewer, public water, surface water drainage, and other utilities shall be made as required by the City Engineer. 5. Screenin9_a~., approved by the Building Board of Review shall be provided on the~~D)and east side of the project. 6. Common property shall not be utilized, charged for admissions use, transferred in ownership,or otherwise administered except as specifically authorized by terms of this Permit. f. Cons tructi on Order Component Description: A Construction Order Component shall contain a map or maps setting forth the proposed Chronological order of construction relating each proposed use and structure to the construction of the various services and facilities as may be required herein. Said Component shall include estimated completion dates and shall specify the proposed order of request for utility release or other authority to occupy completed structures so as to provide a basis for determining the adequacy of the related services and facilities for each separate construction phase. Requi rements: 1. All public and private development shall proceed in accordance with an approved stage development program and no building or other construction permits shall be issued except in accordance with said program. 2. Staging of development shall be as speci fically authorized herein and as supervised and coordinated by such person or persons as designated by the City Council. g. Additional Components Descri ption: The General Pl an of De vel opment may incl ude as additional Components: A Recreation Component; a Public Building Component, providing for consideration for administrative and public safety quarters; and such other Components indicated by the nature of the particular proposed development. Requirements: 1. Trash, garbage, wastes, and other refuse shall be stored and disposed of in the manner as indicated on the approved plans or as covered in the Homeowners Association. 2. Exterior storage of wastes, junk cars, boats, camper units, and other miscellaneous storage other than normal, approved vehicular parking shall be per~tted only if specifically authorized by conditions of this Permit. 3. No identification, rental, advertising, directional, or other signs shall be permitted except those specifically authorized and shown on the approved plans as part of this Permit. -5- \ " t' . ,,'~' . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. e 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. e 20. 21. Accessory uses such as party rooms, day nurseries, and the 1 ike. shall be permitted only if specifically authorized and listed as a permitted use in this Pemit. All development and uses shall be subject to annual inspection by the City for purposes of assuring continued conformity to the provisions of the Permit.. All structures and grounds shall be properly and well maintained at all times. Open space shall be maintained both during and after construction as directed by City Council and Engineering Department so as not to obstruct water flow, introduce pollutants into the water, produce silting, cause defoliation, produce shore-line cave-ins, or otherwise cause or result in conditi ons detrimental to the preservation of this open space in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and general we1 fare. A perpetual easement be granted to the City for plb1ic trail and open space along the east property line, the details of which should be worked out by the staff. Dedication to the City the area designated for tennis courts as indicated on the approved plans. The option of house and land available for sale with a minimum of 10% of units under $33,000 and 3)% of uni ts under $44,000. Certai n 1 and in the PUD areashall be deeded to the Ci ty for park( tennis courts), open green space, trails, and other public purposes in addition to the required public easements as specifically noted on attached and approved plans and documents ma de pa rt 0 f th is Pe rmi t . Special precautions and construction techniques will be requi red to protect open areas to be preserved during development. That pros pective buyers be fully informed of all condi tions of the sale and 1 ease both verbally and in writing. The written material to be slbmitted to the City for review before the first unit opened for sale. Snow removal shall be covered in the Homeowners Association. Approval of the HomeCMners Association structure by the City Attorney with specific reference to payment capability for potential future public improvement assessments. Additional screen planting to be added later (following construction) along the east border if this proves needed and desi rab1e, to be determined by the Ci ty Council. All conditions as recommended by the City Engineer relating to utility easements, storm water drainage and ponding, and 8-6-18 curb and gutter. Dedication of Right of Way for the potential future extension of Duluth Street. Emergency access conditions as recommended by the Public Safety Department. Provisions for control of guest parking and no parking in the vicinity of the swimming pool to be included as an item in the Homeowners Association. Conditions relating to the trail and open space preservation and maintenance to be incl uded as an i tern in the HomeOtlners Associ ati on. . . , .. - . . ' .. \ ......,.',1 ~ 22. All utilities shall be underground. 23. All outside coatings applied to the structure shall be fi rst reviewed by the Inspection Department. 24. Place in the Homea..mers Association and also as part of this Permit that when a unit is completed and sold, that within two (2) years the buyer shall add plantings in the area that has been left for the buyer's discretion adjacent to the unit. . ~ 25. Special precautions as approved by the Inspection Department and City Engineer shall be taken both during and after construction to assure against erosion, silting, excessive grading, or any other conditions detrimental to the area designated to remain in a natural open space condition. Grading and excavation for footings and other construction needs shall be done in a rranner so as to avoid dirt storage, disturbing of trees, or other activities beyond the prescribed construction limits which may adversely affect open areas to remain. The area to be left in a natural, open state shall be maintained. The open areas shall not be util ized for the storage of trash, debris, refuse, or any other similar use incompatible \'1ith the open area. The developer shall have a landscape architect review the si te during the time of planting and landscaping. The 1 andscape architect shall notify the City in writing when the landscaping is completed and that it is in accordance with the plans as approved by the City. Also, the land- scape architect shall review the site approximately one year after the landscaping has been completed to indicate to the owner what needs to be replaced and also notify the City of the same. Within a reasonable period of time this material shall be replaced. The landscape architect shall then notify the City when this has been completed. h. Maps and Reports Requi rements: 1. All maps, reports and other oocuments attached to this Permi t whi ch are properly approved and filed shall be considered as a part of this Permit and shall have the same force and effect as if fully set down herein and are hereby made a part of this Permi t. -7- .. , .... r', ., . y . '.- · tr e It is understood and agreed that this Use Permi tis a part of the Ci ty Counci 1 approval on June 3, 1974 of Planned Uni t Development Nunber 13 On this ~~ d~ 0 f 0 (, I A_ J C7 , 1974. In the presence of: ~~~ 4 dMl~ CHEYENNE LAND COMPANY bY~~~ char . N - ...il-- . . I ts Partner e and Its CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY a municipal corporation t~2 by ~9~~ by Mayor e -8- :~!?~ . .:":.~1 '-"'" i"''' 30. T 118, R 21,'\ ! i' ,-\ I L./~:: ZIJ"'. 7~ N89.3(,'~8"E CBr9 -No.O<lZ,"E 7.00 .4:0.54'45" ), N02302'~ ',"'5.14 !_ "J,' '.I I l ~ "~::211<1.'" C 8rq.. N Z"/9'30"E .d 'Z"34'56" c '/27. 75 '-L~/Z7.7 ~ 1''-\ I '\I \'), _~...:ll~' . . . -. "-'0;. I " ..;J ~l ' v. l~ v.. Q ~ : (~~~J.; "'~~ 'r:i~ :s~~' .... f,.....~ (.' :.'~... J.. :': III' ,.~ \: ~~"""C:: , ..~.:"';' ~ .... ,... ...(\.:~ :,g i ""~ oJ} . :\\~:;. :~ ~ . ''\;.~. ~.~, ,""~~ ~~ I ~ . h €~~ ....~ - .~". . ..~ N" ~'tO' ~~.~ "~ "1\': " .,.... ~e ~--- I \ .~ ~ ~ o Uot \0 ... \..'1 <:) ~ ~ '" ~ D o . 0\ )..\ ~\ \ ; \', ..... \ \~~ \~".j)\ .~\~\~ I I I 01 9 I I ~ I \ ~\ \ 6\ 2\ I I \ I ~ \ I: 0\ ~I \ I I ~I 2\ I )\ o 0\ I ~ MEDL..E'( PAF-I'- ~., [g' . . t]11 I. 'l----.l , , . '- _ H! I I------~---l~ I I "'6 I '~2 L ~. . ulul I ~~ DULUTH I------j :-------1 I ! I Ii! I I I I STRE.E.T o ,---------- ---------1 <!J ClIci I . I ct. ~2 I ! ~~ ~ui i I ~ ui :::!~ i I :: ~ :I I "" ({ I \!l -l 1-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I Oft. 50 100 200 . .. . \VA~MIN" I-lDU5ll' 0 Ilocl<-t( ~1t-l1C. 2. ~ RD AVE.. IoJO. ~ .. ~ Centurion Company Westbrooke 933 - 3311 sales office Kings Valley 546- 8833 sales office 935- 8611 corporate office Kings Uan~y I --1 I I I I --- ---- ---J e CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Mr. Peter Hannan FOR. I I I I I." I I J 878000 ' 65 OO'~ " 914.0 .3'7 e ---- "',,-. " 913.5 'i ...Aq ... <::;) ...<::;) ~ ar,,~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ + ---- ---- , I I I \ \ I ~ 60.54- N78000 ' 00' '1Y ------. --- -.-- " ~132 " 912.8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, ]JJock 1, KINGS VALLEY AREA: 3021." Sq. Ft. o Denotes iron monument Denotes offset stake X 000.0 Denotes existing elev. (000.0) Denotes proposed elev. Denotes surface drainage Proposed garage floor elev.= Proposed top of foundatiol~ elev.= Proposed lowest floor elev.= BENCHMARK: Top nut of hydrant (j 2315-17 EnglislJ Circle, Elev. = 916.68 ADEMARS-.GABRIEL ~D SURVEYORS, INC, I I hereby certify that tlJis survey plan or report was p,'epared by IDe or under IDY direct supervision and. tha t I am a duI.r J.leg!.~tered Land Surveyor under the laws' of the St'ateof Minnesota. . \ As surveyed by me tbis~8tJ:1_day 0/ Flfer.al~JeV i 2000. :JO:JDllarbol' lADe No. PJ.rmoutb, JIN ~~44J PhoDe:(tJJB) ~6Q-0I108 o~~. fA-, David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 L: File No. I (D":7'-8 BOOk-Page aq,., 2 Scale "'=20' '? C) <::::::c ~ \.!J ~ ~ ~ ..-... ~ .J ~ .f ~ -4 ..... , c.J ,'";/ ~ ~ -0 (/ u ~ ~ .~ "I) "'-::- f<:;2> -{ '~ ~ -z.. Q S ..,~ o U I \; \\; V !L._ ! /f 7~-:, ',) '! t') t...E1 7dc Co I .\!J I ....) ~ / " <U / ~ ..., ........ ~ / ~ \..1/ I~ / 'J.J c.., ::> ~ J / ~ ...... ::t '" ".F ~')" ~ / ........l'-> ~ I -: """- Q... ~ , ~ o ......I.ofo-;) j ~ ~J '"'1. I/] oJ :f' ~ ~ I . ____.____~. ;1 , ""- . , , I I I ~ Q I <:J.~ / -.....L~ , ~C . I J-' / '-.~ . - - .- ... 1- - .- - . - - - ....:. -'. -., -- --- '----- (M) d":-/ rrjop -.:rvv.?::/ ft.,?co,,/,,\ . () J~ 1ft I ~ -..""" 'l. 1 ' } 1~ ~:J"3 i I :;:'\/ r ~ I ~I o I -\;: oEl ! , I~! I i I i i I i I ~r-4 --. , I I I I I I , , I ~ I (:f ~ I ~ <:t: I I I! :> I ~ '1 e ~-:z r-----~-~--l I I"~ -----~ I 0 II ~I I I I I Oi: I I I I I o : I I ~ : : I e ~ ~ ~ / V I I I e / / ----' J <) g -w ~J ""' S \~ d J ~ 4~ ... <;) b _ i~ ~ -- ~ \..!J v, << GO) :.t ~ (~ e e e ~ V] -l .., g ~ ~'i \-..L ! rj ....) ~ -{.J Q ~ Q <:.l ~ ~.~ .~ ~ ., ~ ~ I..u !.") Q( :t ~ ~ e e e ~ ~ ()~ ~ ~ " "-)....z I , , 'l; 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ljj c-, ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ . J -\.J o i () o ..l --\..J ~ d \ ~ o ,~ ~ --{: .~ i-j o ~ e \U C'9 ~ ~ '-'7 - M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 20, 2000 Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Revisions Essential Services in the Institutional Zoning District- City of Golden Valley, Applicant e Purpose The purpose of this Agenda Item is to discuss the possibility of revising the text of the Golden Valley Zoning Code to allow certain Essential Services in the Institutional Zoning District. The following is what is proposed: e Essential Services, class II: This class of Essential Services is defined in the Zoning Code as the following: "Public utility facilities completely enclosed within buildings not to exceed 12 feet in height or 600 square feet in gross floor area; or cellular telephone, radio, or television signal transmission towers not to exceed 120 feet in height as measured from the ground level to the highest point of the structures (including antenna), and including necessary equipment completely enclosed within buildings not to exceed 12 feet in height or 600 square feet in gross floor area". This use is currently neither a Permitted nor a Conditional Use in the Institutional Zoning District. Staff is proposing to allow this class of Essential services in the Institutional District, Subdistricts 1-4 only, as a Conditional Use (see attached proposed language). This change is prompted by a desire to accommodate cellular phone antennas on more varied types of property. As you are aware, the use of cellular phones has exploded in the last few years, creating a need for antennas to allow greater coverage for cellular providers. Allowing this class of Essential Services in the Institutional district would make available more properties for these cellular antennas. Staff has received numerous inquiries in the last few years asking to allow these antennas on properties zoned Institutional. Also, since the Institutional District is for publicly-owned property, public entities would be able to generate revenue for the leasing of their property for these antennas. Staff have also attached some recent research on these antennas for your review. Recommended Action This item is presented for your discussion and possible action. Attachments . Section 11.46 -- Institutional zoning district . Article on Planning for Cellular Towers . Article on A Wireless Miscellanv 2 e e e e e e 9 11.45 and playgrounds. 2. Recreational facilities such as ballfields, swimming pools 3. Daytime activity centers and/or other facilities providing school and/or training for retarded or handicapped people. 4. Financial institutions, including drive-in facilities. 5. Limited retail services within a professional office building. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 6. Heliports, as herein defined. 7. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with the uses specifically described above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 Subdivision 9. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: A. Offices B. Essential Services - Class I Subdivision 10. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: A. Essential Services - Class II when constructed on top of a principal building and not exceeding 120 feet in height as measured from the ground level. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 SECTION 11.46. INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to establish areas where both public and private institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, . parks, golf courses, nursing homes and public buildings may be located. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 306 (6-15-98) e S 11.46 Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the Institutional Zoning Distriot in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.46, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.46 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Institutional Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Uses Permitted. A. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-1 Institutional Zoning Sub-District: 1. Churches. 2. Schools, public and parochial, excepting colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 e 3. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 4. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales. Source: Ordinance No. 127, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-27-95 B. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-2 Institutional Zoning Sub-District: 1. Public and private libraries. 2. Museums. 3. Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 e e e e ~ 11.46 4. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Sub-District: C. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-3 Institutional Zoning 1. Rest homes, sanitariums, nursing homes, clinics and other buildings incidental to the operation thereof. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 2. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Sub-District: D. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-4 Institutional Zoning 1. Golf courses, country clubs and polo fields, excepting those carried on as a business such as miniature golf courses. 2. Parks, playgrounds, City offices, fire stations, and other lands incidental to the operation of the City. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 3. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 E. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-5 Institutional zoning Sub-District: 1. Cemeteries. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 2. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 308 (6-15-98) 9 11.46 e Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be allowed in the following Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts when approved by the Council in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: A. Congregate Housing - Housing for the elderly, providing at least one prepared meal per day, in a common dining room. Such housing may also provide certain medical and social services over and above what might be provided. in a standard elderly apartment complex. Congregate housing may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. B. Elderly Housing - Housing (either subsidized or unsubsidized) specifically designed and built for occupancy by elder persons in much the same way that standard multi-family dwellings might be built and managed, but not providing the same services as congregate housing, may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. C. Hospitals and out-patient surgical facilities may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. D. Lodge halls and private clubs may be allowed as a Conditional e Use only within the 1-3 Institutional zoning Sub-District. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 E. Residential facilities only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub- District. Source: Ordinance No. 653 Effective Date: 4-12-85 F. Child day-care facilities may also be permitted as a Conditional Use within the 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and/or 1-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 G. Heliports, as herein defined. H. Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are reasonably compatible with the uses specifically described in Subdivision 3, above, may be permitted as a Conditional Use in any of the four Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts set forth above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 e GOLDEN VALLEY CC 309 (6-15-98) e e e 9 11.46 Subdivision 5. Height. No building or structure other than water tanks, water tank towers and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed three (3) stories in height in the Institutional Zoning District. Church spires, belfries, chimneys and architectural finials may be permitted to exceed the maximum provisions of this Section when erected in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 Subdivision 6. Use of Land. For the purpose of maintaining the character of this Zoning District, no buildings or structures shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the lot or premises. Subdivision 7. Loading and Parking. Adequate areas for off-street loading and unloading of trucks and service vehicles shall be provided in each Institutional Zoning District. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces provided in each Institutional Zoning District shall be as follows: A. 1-1 Institutional Sub-District - One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) units of seating capacity in churches and schools. B. 1-2 Institutional Sub-District - For libraries and museums, at least one parking space for each four (4) units of seating capacity shall be provided. Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education shall provide at least one (1) parking space for each four (4) units of seating capacity, or one (1) parking space for each four (4) students based on total enrollment, whichever is greater. C. 1-3 Institutional Sub-District - Lodge halls and private clubs shall provide one (1) parking space for each two and one-half (2-1/2) seats based on maximum capacity design. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) employees, plus one (1) parking space for each four (4) beds in hospitals, sanitariums, rest homes, and nursing homes. For clinics (medical or dental) and out-patient treatment facilities one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, plus one (1) space for each doctor and one (1) parking space per each 250 square feet of gross floor area shall be required. For congregate and/or elderly housing, one (1) parking space shall be provided for every two (2) dwelling units. Such spaces may be uncovered. Group homes, and residences and/or treatment facilities for chemically dependent persons, shall provide one (1) parking space for each four (4) beds, plus one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, and one (1) parking space for each resident vehicle. GOLDEN VALLEY CC (6-15-98) 310 e 9 11.46 D. 1-4 Institutional Sub-District - One (1) parking space shall be provided for each five (5) patrons based on holding capacity for golf courses, country clubs, or polo fields. In addition, one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees shall also be provided. City offices shall be provided with off-street parking on a basisof one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, plus adequate parking to accommodate visitors having business at City offices. Fire stations and other similar facilities shall provide at least one (1) parking space for each two (2) on-duty personnel based on maximum personnel per shift. E. 1-5 Institutional Sub-District - Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for visitors and employees at cemeteries located within this Zoning Sub-District. F. All parking stalls within the Institutional Zoning District shall be at least 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 Subdivision 8. Yard Requirements. Side and rear yards in the Institutional Zoning District shall not be less than 50 feet in width and depth, of which at least 25 feet e adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. m_um --- - --- u ---S0l.1rce~--GrdiflanGe-No.-G09 Effective Date: 11-11-83 Subdivision 9. Front Yards. No building or structure in an Institutional Zoning District shall be located less than 35 feet from the property line abutting a public street. All portions of a parcel of land abutting a public street shall be regarded as front yards. All front yards shall be planted, and landscaped, and shall contain no off-street parking. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 (Sections 11.47 through 11.54, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) SECTION 11.50. TERMINAL WAREHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT. Repealed by Ordinance No. 50, 2nd Series, adopted 11-13-90.) . ~()I nl=N \lAI I I=V r.r. ~11 (R-1fi-9A) 'CJ Article: Planning for Cellular Towers http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/cam 128 .html e e Seated in the front row of the meeting room is a group of stem-faced town residents. Sitting to the rear is a tightly knit cadre of business attired people armed with display boards, brightly colored transparency overlays and stacks of neatly stapled handouts. Are they the Wal-Mart group? No, that's next month. It must be those tower people. Both groups wait patiently as the items on the agenda are slowly dispensed. The front row participants perk-up when the tower agenda item is read: A public hearing will now be held considering the application of New Age Wireless, a Delaware Limited Partnership request for approval ofa 195 foot wireless communication "utility" facility proposed in an R-l residential district. Why So Many Towers? e As a planning commissioner or zoning board member, if you haven't already been through a tower request, you probably soon will. In fact, chances are you will get to hear quite a few of them. In the early 1980s, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted licenses to two competing cellular phone providers in each community. Over the last 15 years, cellular telephone firms have installed some 22,000 antenna support structures. They have used existing building rooftops, towers, water tanks, and similar structures -- and occasionally built new towers when no other alternatives were available. Starting in late 1995, from three to six additional "next generation" Personal Communication Service (PCS) licenses have been auctioned-off by the FCC, giving high bidders the right to build digital wireless phone networks which compete with standard cellular service. They have paid substantial sums of money for the right to operate under PCI Article: Planning for Cellular Towers http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/cam128.html Role of County & Regional Planning e County and regional planning agencies are well-situated to assist communities in making sure that new cellular towers are planned to minimize negative impacts. Given that cellular providers plan their networks from a regional (and broader) perspective, it makes sense for the public to plan for the siting of telecommunications facilities at the same scale -- instead of each locality seeking to plan for tower siting independently of neighboring communities. Based on my experience, the following are some actions that county or regional planning agencies can take to help ensure that the siting of cellular towers meshes with local (and industry) needs. 1. Provide community educational workshops and forums at which planners, industry representatives, and local residents can discuss -- and begin to cooperatively plan for -- the development of cellular networks in their area. 2. Conduct a county-wide inventory of existing structures suitable for use as antenna support platforms, such as communications towers, buildings 70' or taller, water tanks, and inactive chimneys. As part of the inventory, also identify existing or planned public facilities and lands upon which antennas might be mounted or towers constructed -- e.g., government centers, public works operation yards, police and fire stations, surplus highway right-of-ways. 3. Classify and prioritize preferred land use areas for new towers. This step will require cooperation and input not just from local governments within the county/region, but from the wireless communications providers. e 4. Maintain a central data-base and map of inventoried existing structures, potentially available public facilities and land, and preferred land use areas. 5. Have wireless service providers submit, and annually update, a county-wide antenna network plan. 6. Develop criteria for tower siting and design, including preferred construction materials, types and colors, setback requirements, height restrictions, accessory equipment location, fencing, access road criteria, co-location capacity certification, FAA lighting requirements, and ground screening. 7. Develop incentives to encourage good tower design and co-location of towers (i.e., having more than one cellular service provider locate their transmitters on a single tower). Incentives might include tax abatements for "stealth" or camouflaged towers, and an expedited review and approval process for towers proposed within preferred land use areas, using public facilities, or co-locating with other providers. See Sidebar, "Stealth" Towers. 8. Prepare criteria or a checklist for new tower approval (which can be used at the county/regional level, or adapted for local use). Among items which might be included: . Review of site search ring analysis reports documenting the scope of the applicant's search for existing structures or property owners in preferred land use areas and the rationale for selecting the site under consideration. See Sidebar, Wireless Network Design. e . Review of visual impact analysis, including "simulations" or digitally reproduced depictions of a "virtual" tower of like size and type viewed from various locations around the proposed site. See also, "Visual Analvsis," in Wireless Miscellanv. ?CJ Article: Planning for Cellular Towers http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/cam I 28.html e 9. Provide planning and engineering assistance to communities, including help with review of tower applications. Time To Go Home e It's now ten-thirty P.M. Everyone's patience is wearing a little thin. The tower applicant's lawyer didn't know if the owners of the 440' FM radio tower on Harris Hill Rd. in the town had been asked if it could be used as an antenna site. The applicant's radio frequency engineer testified that he didn't believe the site would work because it was 1 1/2 miles from the site search ring and would interfere with a cell site planned in an adjacent town. He didn't have signal propagation coverage maps with him to back-up his assertion. As the night wore on, it only got worse. The applicant's site acquisition consultant admitted he did not contact the town's public works director to see if the DPW's 40' roof-mounted tower stub could be rebuilt to accommodate both the town's antennas and the applicant's base station equipment. In response to the neighbors' concern about the health effects from radio signals emitted from the proposed antennas, the applicant's expert consultant told them that the high powered TV broadcast towers and 50,000 watt radio station signals emanating from miles away were far more powerful than what the applicant's signal levels were going to be, a fact which didn't please the stern-faced audience as much as one might expect. The commission votes to table the tower application so that the applicant can do more homework and answer all the questions put forward at the meeting. The neighborhood folks are outside in the parking lot discussing whether they should start a petition drive and raise money to hire their own lawyer to fight the proposed tower. Someone's cellular phone rings. It's one of their kids asking his dad to pick-up a pizza they've ordered for a sleep-over party. It's time to go home. Sidebars: e A nA/(\A 1") .At; DlI.K PCJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.comlarticles/wiremisc.html Editor's Note: Thanks to those Planning Commissioners Journal subscribers who provided us with information about local approaches to dealing with wireless towers. Much of the material in this "Miscellany" comes from this input. Please note that a list of contact names and phone numbers (and, where available, web sites) for all references in this Miscellany can be found at the end Also, please realize that the area of wireless communications is rapidly evolving. As a result, some information in this Miscellany may become dated as time passes. An excellent source to keep up-to-date, especially on federal legislation, is the FCC's web site. A very good place to go for links to wireless proponents, opponents, and regulators is Ben Campanelli's TowerMart. Contents of this Miscellany: . Cellular Growth Booms . Personal Communications Services . Moratoria . Co-Location . Camouflaging Towers . Visual Analysis . "Tiered" Review . Environmental Review . Municipal Profits from Towers . Abandoned Towers . Public Health Impacts . Wireless Benefits . On the Horizon Contact Names & Numbers Cellular Growth Booms Telecommunications companies continue to report steep growth in wireless customers. During 1995, Ameritech saw its number of cellular customers rise 45.6 percent to almost 1.9 million. Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile reported a 43.4 percent increase in customers e e e leJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html e over the same period. The BellSouth Corporation saw its revenues from wireless communications increase nearly 70 percent between the end of 1993 and 1995, compared to a 13 percent increase from its overall operations. Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellany Personal Communications Services PCS stands for "personal communications services," a method of communication similar to cellular. One of the attractions ofPCS is that it provides higher quality reception and allows for the transmission of data, as well as voice (though cellular providers are developing comparable capabilities). PCS uses higher frequencies than cellular, which results in PCS signals traveling shorter distances than cellular signals. For this reason, a typical PCS system will require more sites than a typical cellular system. Unlike cellular radio services, PCS providers are issued a blanket license by the Commission for their entire geographic area, and are not required to individually license with the FCC each transmitter site within the market area. Another distinction is that the Commission uses different geographic market areas for licensing purposes. Instead of using MSAs and RSAs as in the case of cellular, for broadband PCS the Commission adopted Rand McNally's definitions to divide the United States and its Possessions and Territories into 51 major trading areas (MTA) and 493 basic trading areas (BTA). Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv e Moratoria The FCC is currently considering a petition filed by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry seeking to prohibit all local zoning moratoria affecting the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. The FCC's Local and State Government Advisory Committee has opposed this request noting that: "Moratoria have permitted communities, often in close consultation with industry representatives, to modify out-of-date regulations and facilitate the placement of facilities. In many communities, the adoption of a moratorium has been followed by the adoption of clear siting policies and procedures that properly balance local safety and aesthetic concerns with the desire of many local residents to have access to reliable personal wireless services." Advisory Recommendation Number 4 (June 27, 1997). While the FCC has not (as of September 22) ruled on the cellular industry petition, it hinted at its position by "tentatively concluding" in a July 28, 1997 Public Notice (FCC 97-264) that "moratoria of a fixed duration, which permit local officials the opportunity to study. and develop a process for handling siting requests would be a legitimate exercise of local land use authority .., moratoria of a relatively short and fixed duration may serve the public interest. " e The documents cited above are available on the FCC's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/ -- which is, as previously noted, an excellent place to keep up-to-date on FCC policies and rulings. Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv ?CJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html Co-Location e Co-location (sometimes spelled "collocation") is when more than one antenna or transmitter is located on a single tower. The principal benefit from co-location is that fewer towers are needed to serve a given area. This reduces the overall visual impact of towers on a community. Co-location, however, can necessitate taller towers in order to accommodate multiple transmission devices. It can also raise tricky issues involving "good faith" negotiations between the company owning the tower and potential competitors seeking to share space. Co-location has become a favored policy in many communities and regions. For example, the City of Solon, Ohio's ordinance provides that "as a condition of issuing a permit to construct or operate a tower in the City, the owner/operator of the tower is required to allow co-location until said tower has reached full antenna capacity, but in no event fewer than two additional antennas from two additional providers." The owner/operator is also required "to sign a statement that all disputes with future providers concerning co-location and the terms and conditions of co-location shall be submitted to commercial arbitration... ." Given the City's strong preference for co-location, tower heights up to 199 feet are allowed (in order to accommodate the extra height usually needed for locating additional antennas on a tower). Daly City, California's, new wireless communications ordinance similarly encourages co-location. When applying for a permit, "the applicant shall specifically state the reasons for not co-locating on any of the existing monopoles and lattice towers within a 3,000 foot radius. ... the applicant may also be asked to provide a letter from the telecommunications carrier owning or operating the existing facility stating reasons for not permitting co-location." The Daly City ordinance also provides that "as a condition of approval for all freestanding monopoles, all telecommunications carriers proposing a monopole shall provide a written commitment to the Director [of Economic & Community Development] that they shall allow other wireless carriers to co-locate antennas on the monopoles where technically and economically feasible." In Vermont, the Windham Regional Plan includes a policy to "discourage the development of new sites for transmission and receiving stations in favor of utilizing existing facilities." This policy was recently applied by the state Environmental Board in denying a land use permit for a 110 foot communications tower. The Environmental Board concluded that the applicant failed to adequately identify and assess existing facilities and failed to negotiate. in good faith with the owners of other existing facilities. Gary Savoie, #2W0991-EB (Aug. 27, 1997). (Note: The Board's decision contains an interesting analysis of some of the issues that can come up in determining whether an applicant has been negotiating in "good faith" to co-locate on another carrier's tower]. The City of Overland Park, Kansas, communications towers ordinance contains several provisions designed to encourage co..Jocation. One limits initial special use permits for towers to five years. "At the time of renewal the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that a good-faith effort has been made to cooperate with other providers to establish co-location at the tower site." The ordinance defines "good-faith effort" as including "timely response to co-location inquiries from other providers and sharing of technical information to evaluate the feasibility of establishing co-location." e Retunl to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellany e Camouflaging Towers PCJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html e e e Another policy encouraged in many new telecommunications tower ordinances is to camouflage towers and related equipment, or make them as inconspicuous as possible. The City of Liberty, Missouri's wireless communications ordinance encourages the use of "alternative tower structures" (such as grain silos, utility poles, clock towers, and steeples), as well as other existing buildings, by providing a simpler review process for those applications. According to city planner Bonnie Johnson: "The plan adopted by the City Council takes the approach of being flexible on location but strict on design. The ordinance allows wireless communication facilities in any zoning district as long as it fits its surroundings. The hope is that by being lenient on location and creating a relatively simple approval process -- for example, antennas placed on existing buildings can be approved administratively -- telecommunication providers will choose the path of least resistance which are camouflaged facilities or roof tops in commercial areas." Along similar lines, the Town of Matthews, North Carolina, seeks to encourage "stealth" towers by allowing them within residential districts and by authorizing increased heights for stealth towers in other districts. The Matthews ordinance defines "stealth or concealed structure" as "the support structure for a communications system which is primarily for another principal use or accessory to the principal use on the lot where it is located, and partially or wholly conceals the antenna or minimizes its appearance in relation to the principal use of the stealth structure." Planning Director Kathi Ingrish notes that "Duke Power Company has begun offering their transmission towers as antenna locations, so we specifically wrote in allowances to exceed height limits when on existing 'stealth' structures." Ingrish also observes that "for Matthews, what I see as the 'saving grace' is the local power company's participation in the communications game. They are marketing themselves as a host for antennas. Since there are four transmission lines running out from a central point, and their towers are much taller than anything else around, they provide good opportunities for antenna locations without adding new spikes into the horizon." A number of companies have already recognized that there is a rapidly growing market for camouflaged towers. Larson Associates, based in Tucson, Arizona, has built on its specialty of fabricating artificial landscapes for theme parks and zoos by developing ways of disguising poles so that they look, for example, like palm or pine trees. Similarly, Stealth Network Technologies of North Charleston, South Carolina, designs and installs antenna sites concealed in bell towers, false chimneys, and other custom-made structures. Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv Visual Analysis As Ben Campanelli suggests in his article in this issue, planners can require tower applicants to provide a visual analysis or simulation of what the tower will look like in its surroundings. A number of communities have incorporated this type of requirement into their telecommunications tower ordinances. The City of Overland Park, Kansas, for example, requires that a special use permit application for a communications tower include, among other things, "a photo simulation of the proposed facility from effected residential properties and public rights-of-way as coordinated with the Planning staff." Similarly, Daly City, California's ordinance provides for "visual impact demonstrations using photo-simulations ... elevations or other visual or graphic illustrations to determine potential visual impact." . AJ""I'\//'\^ 11.r€ A...Jf PCJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html Sonoma, California's new wireless ordinance provides that applicants "shall submit a visual analysis, which may include photo montage, field mock up or other techniques, which identifies the potential visual impacts of the proposed facility. Consideration shall be given to views from public areas as well as from private residences. The analysis shall assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed facility and other existing and foreseeable telecommunication facilities in the area, and shall identify and include all feasible mitigation measures consistent with the technological requirements of the proposed telecommunication service. All costs for the visual analysis, and applicable administrative costs, shall be borne by the applicant." e Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv "Tiered" Review A number of communities that have recently adopted telecommunications tower ordinances have made use of "tiered" review. This approach seeks to encourage new antennas to be located on existing buildings (or co-located on existing towers) by providing for quick approval, often administratively by staff, in those cases. Closer scrutiny is given to new towers applications. Claremont, California, planners note that this approach "makes it easy to obtain permits for the types of telecommunications facilities that the community prefers, such as facade mounted or concealed roof mounted antennas, and makes it more difficult and expensive to obtain approvals for the types of facilities that the community wants to discourage, such as freestanding monopoles." The Cape Cod Commission, in a model bylaw (i.e., ordinance) prepared for its member towns, employs a tiered review process. According to the Commission: "New facilities which locate on an existing tower, monopole, electric utility tower or water tower require no special permit under the bylaw, as long as they do not increase the height of the structure and as long as they gain site plan approval. The second tier proposed in the bylaw would allow new ground or building mounts anywhere in town by special permit, provided they meet standards for height, camouflage, setback, safety and design. The third tier is for facilities which exceed the bylaws height restrictions. Such facilities would be allowed by special permit only in a designated overlay district which the town has decided can accommodate the new structures." e In addition, the Cape Cod Commission itself reviews most new tower proposals as "developments of regional impact." The Commission has adopted criteria for evaluating towers based on environmental impacts, community character, and other factors. To assist wireless providers, the Commission has integrated into its geographic information system a Cape-wide inventory of existing buildings and structures which may be suitable for antenna installations. The towns have also provided information on areas in which wireless facilities would be both appropriate and inappropriate. This has been incorporated into the GIS maps (along with water resource and conservation areas, state and federal lands, and electric transmission corrdiors). The Commission is currently in the process of identifying scenic viewsheds to include on the maps as well. Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv e Environmental Review PCJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/artic1es/wiremisc.html e e e In implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), the Federal Communications Commission requires applicants to prepare "environmental assessments" for towers that are proposed to be located in certain environmentally sensitive areas, including: officially designated wildlife preserves or wilderness areas; 100-year floodplains; situations which may affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitats; or situations which may cause significant change in surface features, such as wetland fills, deforestation or water diversion. In addition, an environmental assessment must be prepared when sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places may be affected. The fact that an environmental assessment is required does not necessarily mean the tower cannot be built. It does, however, call for public notice and opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed tower. If the FCC, after review of the comments, makes a finding of "no significant impact," the project has cleared NEPA scrutiny. More information on FCC environmental review and other siting questions is available in FCC Fact Sheet #2, National Wireless Facilities Siting Policies. This 39-page document is available by fax: 202-418-2830 (reference document #6508), and on the FCC's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/ Retum to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellany Municipal Profits from.Towers If you can't stop towers from coming in, why not at least profit from them? That's the approach Gastonia, North Carolina (population 62,000) and some other communities have taken by encouraging towers to be located on municipal property, such as parks, golf courses, and school fields. According to Gastonia planning director Jack Kiser, "the city actively markets municipal property to the cellular industry as site locations." The approval process is much simpler when a site is proposed on municipal land. For example, no public hearings are required. Kiser reports that Gastonia can earn in excess of$15,000 per year in lease payments for a tower located on city property. Moreover, if a second cellular provider co-locates on a tower (as the city encourages), the city takes in 50 percent of the payment that provider makes to the tower owner. All told, Gastonia will earn $80,000 next year from the five towers (four of which have co-locators) currently on city-owned land. These towers will yield $3 million over a 25 year period, not counting taxes, if they stay that long. The city has also benefited by being able to co-locate, at no cost, all municipal antennas (emergency, non-emergency, and mobile data terminals) on the towers being built. Kiser believes that residents are not as upset when they see that the city will financially benefit from towers that would likely be built in any event. This is especially the case if some of the revenues can be earmarked to improve the public area within which the tower is located. Kiser also notes that the telecommunications companies have supported the city's policy, since it meets their top priority of getting their facilities installed as quickly as possible. In cases where the company no longer needs the tower, the city has the choice of taking possession of the tower or requiring it to be removed. Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv AU'''^I^^ 't1.rr ....x PCJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany. http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html Abandoned Towers e While right now it's boom times in the wireless communications industry, it's always hard to predict where technology will be ten or twenty years from now. As a result, many communities with new wireless tower ordinances have wisely included provisions making the tower owner responsible for removing the structure if it stops being used for communications purposes. The Overland Park, Kansas, communications tower ordinance is typical in providing that "any antenna or tower that is not operated for a continuous period of twelve months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such antenna or tower shall remove the same within ninety days or a receipt of notice ... If such antenna or tower is not removed within said ninety days, the governing authority may remove such antenna or tower at the owner's expense. " Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellany Public Health Impacts [From a report published by the Vermont Natural Resources Council] "The electromagnetic spectrum consists of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing forms of radiation include ultraviolet rays, X- and Gamma rays, and Cosmic rays from the sun. Their harmful effects, particularly their potential to cause cancer, are well known. ... e Radiofrequency fields, including microwaves, are within the non-ionizing spectrutn, but that doesn't mean they're completely safe. Their known danger is that under some circumstances -- for example, at the transmission point for FM radio signals -- they can produce enough energy to cause heating in conductive materials, including human tissue. The heating, or "thermal," effects of high-frequency, non-ionizing forms of radiation are understood; to prevent them, owners of broadcast towers are required to erect fencing and/or post signs to keep the public at a distance from the facilities. Where the opinion of science is divided, however, is in regard to exposure to non-thermal (or athermal) energy waves, which do not heat body tissue. ... While proof of danger from exposure to non-thermal RFR [ radiofrequency radiation] thus far has remained elusive, theories of negative effects include that such exposure indirectly damages DNA, and, perhaps, the electrical transmissions involved in the nervous system. ... The Cancer Journal (Vol. 8, No.5) provides a cautious voice, stating: 'Epidemiology has seen a large number of examples where health hazards were initially described with unconvincing and sometimes inadequate experiments which demonstrated a weak association with a given environmental influence. Such associations were found between cholera and drinking water containing fecal contaminants, between smoking and lung cancer or between exposure to vinyl chloride and certain forms of liver cancer. All these associations were highly questioned in the past and are now well recognized.' ... On August 1, 1996, responding to the Congressional mandate as enunciated in the TCA, the FCC adopted new health and safety regulations for exposure. These are based on standards established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, a congressionally chartered organization. ... They are scheduled to become effective _ September I, 1997. . It is important to note that the FCC addresses health concerns by controlling for exposure-- not emissions. A licensee might simply be required to post signs or erect fences around a PCJ Article: A Wireless Miscellany . e . http://www.plannersweb.comlarticles/wiremisc.html safety and personal wireless communications. Furthermore, wireless telecommunications and data services play an increasing (and increasingly sophisticated) role in providing healthcare services. Personal wireless service providers may also serve as a lower-cost source of advanced telecommunications capabilities for schools and libraries." From FCC Fact Sheet #2. Information on how to obtain this document is available at the end of . Environmental Review sidebar Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv Looming On the Horizon The broadcast industry this August filed a petition with the FCC to drastically curtail state and local review of the siting ofDTV (digital television) towers -- the "next generation" of broadcast towers. According to the FCC's notice of rule making: "Petitioners state that the accelerated DTV transition schedule [approved by the FCC] will require extensive and concentrated tower construction. They estimate that 66 percent of existing television broadcasters will require new or upgraded towers to support DTV service, involving an estimated 1000 television towers. Moreover, they state, as a result of the increased weight and windloading ofDTV facilities and other tower constraints, a number of FM broadcast stations which have collocated their FM antennas on television towers will be forced to relocate to other existing towers or to construct new transmission facilities. ... Petitioners propose a rule which provides specific time limits for state and local government action in response to requests for approval of the placement, construction or modification of broadcast transmission facilities ... [generally] requests would have to be acted upon within 45 days. Failure to act within these time limits would cause the request to be deemed granted. ... Petitioners would categorically preempt regulations based on the environmental or health effects of radio frequency ("RF") emissions to the extent a broadcast facility has been determined by the Commission to comply with its regulations and policies concerning emissions; interference with other telecommunications signals and consumer electronics devices as long as the broadcast antenna facility has been determined by the Commission to comply with its applicable regulations and/or policies concerning interference. ... Further, the rule would preempt all state and local land use, building, and similar laws, rules or regulations that impair the ability of licensed broadcasters to place, construct or modify their transmission facilities unless the promulgating authority can demonstrate that the regulation is reasonable in relation to a clearly defined and expressly stated health or safety objective." The FCC's notice of rule making goes on to state that: "To the extent that state and local ordinances result in delays that make it impossible for broadcasters to meet our construction schedule and provide DTV service to the public, important Congressional and FCC objectives regarding prompt availability of this service to the public and prompt recovery of spectrum would be frustrated. At the same time, we are sensitive to the rights of states and localities to protect the legitimate interests of their citizens and we do not seek to unnecessarily infringe these rights. The Commission recognizes its obligation to 'reach a fair accommodation between federal and nonfederal interests.' ... Thus, it is incumbent upon the Commission not to 'unduly interfere with the legitimate affairs of local governments when they do not frustrate federal objectives.' These include not only certain health and safety regulations, which the Petitioners' proposed rule recognizes, but also the right of localities to maintain their aesthetic qualities." A I,.,n/nn 11 .J::t::. ^ II"f PCI Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html ;, More information on this rulemakingis available at the FCC's web site: http://www .fcc. gov/state&local/ e Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv Wireless Miscellany Contacts: . Cape Cod Commission. Gay Wells at: 508-362-3828 (phone); 508-362-3136 (fax); capecommission@compuserve.com . Claremont, California. Lisa Prasse at: 909-399-5486 (phone); 909-399-5366 (fax) . Daly City, California. Al Savay at: 415-991-8033 (phone) . Gastonia, North Carolina. Jack Kiser at: 704-854-6652 (phone); 704-864-9732 (fax) . Liberty. Missouri. Bonnie Johnson at: 816-792-6000 x31 07 (phone) . Matthews, North Carolina. Kathi Ingrish at: 704-847-4411 (phone); 704-845-1964 (fax) . Overland Park, Kansas. Leslie Karr at: 913-895-6190 (phone); 913-895-5013 (fax) . Solon, Ohio. Edward Suit at: 330-399-8964 (phone) . Sonoma, California. Sandra C1eisz at: 707-938-3743 (phone) . Vermont Environmental Board. David Grayck at: 802-828-5444 (phone) . Windhanl Regional Commission, Vermont. Susan McMahon at: 802-257-4547 (phone) . Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association web site . List of wireless communications industry web sites. . Larson Associates. Scott Krenzer at: 800-527-7668 . Stealth Network Technologies. Jim Haldeman at: 800-755-0689. Return to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv e Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal. You welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- orto provide a link to article from another Web site. For other use of the article, please contact the Planning Commissioners Journal. . I . PROPOSED LANGUAGE REVISION SECTION 11.46. INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to establish areas where both public and private institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, parks, golf courses, nursing homes and public buildings may be located. e Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the Institutional Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.46, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.46 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Institutional Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Uses Permitted. A. The following uses shall be permitted in the I-I Institutional Zoning Sub-District: I.Churches. 2.8chools, public and parochial, excepting colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 3.Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 4.Seasonal Farm Produce Sales. Source: Ordinance No. 127, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-27-95 B. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-2 Institutional Zoning Sub-District: e I.Public and private libraries. I 2.Museums. 3.Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 4.Essential Services - Class 1. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 e C. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District: I.Rest homes, sanitariums, nursing homes, clinics and other buildings incidental to the operation thereof. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 2.Essential Services - Class 1. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 D. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-District: I.Golf courses, country clubs and polo fields, excepting those carried on as a business such as miniature golf courses. 2.Parks, playgrounds, City offices, fire stations, and other lands incidental to the operation of the City. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 3.Essential Services - Class 1. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 e E. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-5 Institutional zoning Sub-District: I.Cemeteries. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 2.Essential Services - Class 1. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be allowed in the following Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts when e 2 I'" . e approved by the Council in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: A. Congregate Housing - Housing for the elderly, providing at least one prepared meal per day, in a common dining room. Such housing may also provide certain medical and social services over and above what might be provided in a standard elderly apartment complex. Congregate housing maybe allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. B. Elderly Housing - Housing (either subsidized or unsubsidized) specifically designed and built for occupancy by elder persons in much the same way that standard multi-family dwellings might be built and managed, but not providing the same services as congregate housing, may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. C. Essential Services - Class II may also be permitted as a Conditional Use within the 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and/or 1-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts up to a height of 120 feet. e G D. Hospitals and out-patient surgical facilities may be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. .Q E. Lodge halls and private clubs may be allowed asa Conditional Use only within the 1-3 Institutional zoning Sub-District. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 E F. Residential facilities only within the 1-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District. Source: Ordinance No. 653 Effective Date: 4-12-85 F-G. Child day-care facilities may also be permitted as a Conditional Use within the I-I, 1-2, 1-3 andlor 1-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 e 3 " . Go H. Heliports, as herein defined. e H I. Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are reasonably compatible with the uses specifically described in Subdivision 3, above, may be permitted as a Conditional Use in any of the four Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts set forth above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 Subdivision 5. Height. Except in the case of Conditional Uses for Essential Services, Wno building or structure other than water tanks, water tank towers and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed three (3) stories in height in the Institutional Zoning District. Church spires, belfries, chimneys and architectural finials may be permitted to exceed the maximum provisions of this Section when erected in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 Subdivision 6. Use of Land. For the purpose of maintaining the character of this Zoning District, no buildings or structures shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the lot or premises. e Subdivision 7. Loading and Parking. Adequate areas for off-street loading and unloading of trucks and service vehicles shall be provided in each Institutional Zoning District. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces provided in each Institutional Zoning District shall be as follows: A. 1-1 Institutional Sub-District - One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) units of seating capacity. in churches and schools. B. 1-2 Institutional Sub-District - For libraries and museums, at least one parking space for each four (4) units of seating capacity shall be provided. Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education shall. provide at least one (1) parking space for each four (4) units of seating capacity, or one (1) parking space for each four (4) students based on total enrollment, whichever is greater. C. 1-3 Institutional Sub-District - Lodge halls and private clubs e 4 , . . shall provide one (1) parking space for each two and one-half (2-1/2) seats based on maximum capacity design. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) employees, plus one (1) parking space for each four (4) beds in hospitals, sanitariums, rest homes, and nursing homes. For clinics (medical or dental) and out-patient treatment facilities one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, plus one (1) space for each doctor and one (1) parking space per each 250 square feet of gross floor area shall be required. For congregate and/or elderly housing, one (1) parking space shall be provided for every two (2) dwelling units. Such spaces may be uncovered. Group homes, and residences and/or treatment facilities for chemically dependent persons, shall provide one (1) parking space for each four (4) beds, plus one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, and one (1) parking space for each resident vehicle. e D. 1-4 Institutional Sub-District - One (1) parking space shall be provided for each five (5) patrons based on holding capacity for golf courses, country clubs, or polo fields. In addition, one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees shall also be provided. City offices shall be provided with off-street parking on a basis of one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, plus adequate parking to accommodate visitors having business at City offices. Fire stations and other similar facilities shall provide at least one (1) parking space for each two (2) on-duty personnel based on maximum personnel per shift. E. 1-5 Institutional Sub-District - Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for visitors and employees at cemeteries located within this Zoning Sub-District. F. All parking stalls within the Institutional Zoning District shall be at least 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth. Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 Subdivision 8. Yard Requirements. Side and rear yards in the Institutional Zoning District shall not be less than 50 feet in width and depth, of which at least 25 feet adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. e Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 5 ,. . Subdivision 9. Front Yards. No building or structure in an Institutional Zoning District shall be located less than 35 feet from the property line abutting a public street. All portions of a parcel of land abutting a public street shall be regarded as front yards. All front yards shall be planted, and landscaped, and shall contain no off-street parking. e Source: Ordinance No. 567 Effective Date: 5-28-82 (Sections 11.47 through 11.54, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) e e 6