Loading...
06-26-00 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday,June26,2000 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - June 12, 2000 II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit No. 84 Applicant: Lejeune Investments, Inc. Address: 9105 Tenth Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To allow with a Conditional Use Permit the operation of performing detailing, minor repair and temporary storage of automobiles in the Industrial zoning district. No motor vehicle sales and/or showrooms will be allowed. III. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit No. 85 Applicant: Border Foods Address: 9050 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN (Lot, 1, Block 1, Cooperman Subdivision) Purpose: To allow with a Conditional Use Permit the operation of a Class II fast food restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken/Pizza Hut) in the Commercial zoning district -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business A. Discussion of Essential Services Class II in Institutional zoning districts. VI. Adjournment . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission iOftAFT ONLY Has NOtJlM!J115P,P..!OO6I A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, GoldenValley, Minnesota on Monday, June 12, 2000. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Groger, Rasmussen, McAleese, and Hoffman; absent was Shaffer. Also present were City Planer Dan Olson, Planning Assistant Mary Dold, and Recording Secretary Heidi Reinke. I. Approval of Minutes - May 22, 2000 Groger noted that Rick Anderson's address is incorrect on page 2. The correct address is 17800 19th Avenue North-Plymouth. Another correction should be made on page 7 in the top paragraph. The statement reads, "The subject property is entirely surrounded by single-family homes." The statement should be corrected as follows: "The subject property has single-family homes on three sides." On page 9 in the first paragraph, the statement should be corrected to read, "He suggested that a decrease in the amount of the front setback to 25 or 30 feet may be looked at." The final correction is on page 9. The statement regarding the sidewalk committee should be corrected as follows: "The Committee talked about a proposed sidewalk along Douglas Drive, south of Duluth Street. The proposed sidewalk could stretch all the way to Highway 55, where a trail begins." Eck noted an error on page 7. The statement should read as follows: "The objective is to get traffic off of Laurel Avenue prior to Winnetka Avenue." MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman, and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 22, 2000 minutes with the above corrections. II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision/Lot Consolidation Applicant: James A. Yarosh Address: Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 1, Sirny Addition (Also known as 20, 40, and 60 Garden Park, Golden Valley, Minnesota) Purpose: To subdivide the middle lot (Lot 7) into two halves with Lots 6 and 8 each obtaining one of the halves. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Page 2 . Planning Assistant Mary Dold stated the request by James'Yarosh to subdivide the middle lot (Lot 7) into two halves with Lots 6 and 8 each obtaining one of the halves. She commented that there are eight lots in this development, three on Ridgeway Road and five lots around the Garden Park cul-de-sac. Dold noted six of these lots have been constructed on and two are still vacant. Dold said that there are nine points for consideration of a Minor Subdivision, as follows: 1. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning district - The subject property is zoned for single family residential use. The new lots would exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 80 feet in width at the front setback line and 10,000 sq. ft. in area. When the lots are joined, they will have this area and frontage. 2. Building portion of any new lot must not be excessively encumbered by steep slopes or wetness - As noted above, the existing Lots 7 and 8 drop in elevation by approximately four feet to the northeast and east sides of the property. Grading, drainage and erosion control measures will need to be addressed at the time any construction is done on the vacantlot or if an addition is added to the existing house on Lot 6. . 3. Public sewer and water connections must be available - they are. 4. Applicant must grant all necessary easements for public purposes per the City Engineer - The existing six-foot side drainage and utility easements abutting Lots 6 and 7 must be maintained. There are existing NSP utilities underground. City Staff will request from the City Council a vacation of the six-foot easements abutting Lots 7 and 8. The new plat showing the newly created lots will need to reflect the required six-foot drainage and utility easements along the side and rear property lines and a ten-foot drainage and utility easement along the front property lines. 5. Other public agencies with some form of jurisdiction over the area of the subject property may apply their own conditions of approval - These properties front on Garden Park and Western Avenue, both of which are City streets and no other agencies are involved. 6. The applicant may have to submit to title review and agree to resolve any issues that arise - The City generally requires title review for complex plats and may require it for plats where land or easements are being obtained from private property. This minor subdivision is quite simple, and a review of . title by the City Attorney is not believed to be necessary. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Page 3 7. Applies only to nonresidential minor subdivisions. 8. A park dedication fee must be paid for any additional lot created by the minor subdivision - Sinc.e the subject property is going from three lots to two lots, no fee is required. 9. Refers to additional requirements applicable only to minor subdivisions for double bungalows. Dold noted Staff's recommendation that the final plat shall reflect standard easements along property lines and suc.h additional easements as the City Engineer might find desirable for public purposes; this includes the existing side lot easements abutting Lots 6 and 7. Jim Yarosh, from the law firm of Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A., presented the proposal on behalf of the owners Mark and Lisa Ratner and Lawrence and Nancy Shapiro. It is Shapiro's intent to acquire the northern half of Lot 7. The Ratner's plan to build a house on the new lot or sell it to a prospective buyer. He showed the preliminary sketch of the plan. Eck questioned the Ratner's motivation for the subdivision. Yarosh responded that there might be a potential buyer for the Ratner's lot and are getting the lot ready for resale. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. McAleese said the proposal meets all the requirements as set out in the City Code for a Minor Subdivision and should be approved. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve the proposal to subdivide the middle lot (Lot 7) into two halves with Lots 6 and 8 each obtaining one of the halves. III. Informal Public Hearing' - Minor Subdivision Applicant: Lube-Tech Address: 9105 Tenth Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Page 4 . Purpose: Subdivide the existing lot into two lots. Lejuene Investments is the proposed buyer of the eastern portion of the proposed subdivided lot and Lube-Tech (located at 900-10 Mendelssohn Avenue) is the proposed buyer of the western portion of the proposed subdivided lot. City Planner Dan Olson stated the request by Lube-Tech to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. Lejuene Investments is the proposed buyer of the eastern portion of the proposed subdivided lot and Lube-Tech (located at 900-10 Mendelssohn Avenue) is the proposed buyer of the western portion of the proposed subdivided lot. He showed the site plan. Olson told the Commission this property is part of the former location of the Vehicle Emission Testing Station. Lube-Tech owns the property directly to the west at 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North. Lube-Tech is working with the owner of the former Vehicle Emission Testing Station property to purchase a portion of the property. Olson said this requires splitting the Vehicle Emissions property into two lots. The representative from Lube-Tech commented that at the time Lube-Tech proposes a build-out of its existing building on the east side, it would then consolidate the western . half of the subject property onto the property at 900 Mendelssohn. Olson commented that LeJeune Investments is proposing to purchase the eastern portion of the subject property and would come before the Planning Commission at a later date for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a detailing and minor repair business and the storage of vehicles on the site. Olson said that the proposal qualifies as a Minor Subdivision in Industrial zoning district. The grading, drainage and erosion control and tree preservation plan would be reviewed for the site. Eck inquired about a fence that is located on the property. Olson responded that the property line is west of the semi-trailer pad. He said the applicant could address whose property the semi-trailer pad is located on. Craig Swarthout, applicant, presented the proposal. He commented that Lube-Tech has used a portion of the subject property for their semi-trailer parking for a number of years. They have an agreement with the current property owner to use that area. The fence is located in the middle of the property, not at the property line. This is one reason why Lube-Tech has proposed to buy the property. They would like to use the extra area to expand their company. Lube-Tech, at this time, does not have plans to change the configuration of this property. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Page 5 Pentel inquired as to the size of the proposed lot that would be created for Lube-Tech. Swarthout responded that each proposed lot would be approximately three acres in size. McAleese noted that the new property line would go through the pond. He inquired if the pond is a managed pond. He commented that he does not remember an instance where a pond has been divided between two separate owners. He is concerned that it may cause some problems. Olson said the pond is managed. He noted the existing pond would remain as is. Olson said that when LeJeune brought in its CUP for this site, water quality would need to be addressed and LeJeune would be providing additional ponding on its site. McAleese suggested that the owners and the City have an agreement regarding the pond. When new lots are created, an agreement or other mechanism is put in place to meet the requirements. Swarthout noted that it is the understanding of the City Engineer that an agreement needs to be in place. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Tom Dunn, Welsh Company and representative for Systems Control (owner of 9105 10th Avenue North), stated that a purchase agreement was signed several years ago to sell the western portion of the subject property to Lube-Tech. He noted that Lube-Tech has paid for the property but the sale has not yet taken place. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel said that the request is straightforward. McAleese agreed that the request is straightforward. He noted the only issue is the shared pond and believes it should not become a concern because of the review process by the City's Engineering Department. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman, and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the request to subdivide the subject property into two lots. IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other Meetings Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2000 Page 6 . . Eck said the issue of redirecting traffic from Pennsylvania Avenue along the frontage road to Winnetka remains a thorny issue. He noted to qualify for state aid, the corners have to be at 30 mph. The issue wasn't resolved at the Task Force meeting. There will be another meeting on Wednesday night to address the issue. A meeting will be held at Liberty Carton on Tuesday for business owners on Pennsylvania Avenue to talk over the issue. He believed the meeting was at 6:30 P.M. and open to anyone. The Task Force plans to present with the final recommendations to the City Council on July 11. Pentel said that the traffic management plan on 1-394 shows that the intersection at Louisiana is still in excess of the capacity. V. Other Business Pentel said a Commissioner needs to be appointed to the Advisory Board for the former Sheriff's Pistol Range Site. Rasmussen volunteered to serve on the Advisory Board. McAleese volunteered to be the backup to Rasmussen. Hoffman inquired about the notice process for the Meadowbrook Preliminary Plat which is going to the City Council on July 5. He noted he received a notice but a neighbor did not. Dold said those persons within 500 feet of the subject property should have . received a hearing notice. Pentel added said this would be a public hearing. Pentel said that the Olympic Printing is going through condemnation. She said staff requested the Commission not to do any planning of the site until the property is acquired. Pentel asked staff if they had heard when Hidden Lakes was proposing to submit an amendment for PUD 74 (Hidden Lakes project on Sweeney and Twin Lakes). Dold responded that she had heard it may be this fall. Pentel suggested to the new commissioners that they may want to review minutes and/or the videos of the previous hearings when the original PUD application came in for this residential project. VI. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 7:45 P.M. Richard Groger, Secretary . , '" 'lloj. . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 21, 2000 Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 9105 10th Avenue South -Lejuene Investments, Applicant . Lejuene Investments is proposing to buy an existing building at 9105 10th Avenue South to house their car detailing and minor auto repair business. Lejeune owns the Carousel Porsche/Audi dealership in Golden Valley, as well as other car dealerships in the Twin Cities area. They currently have these c,ar detailing and minor automobile repair uses at each of their dealerships. Buying this building is an attempt to consolidate these uses at one location. The business entails new and used car clean-up, touch-up painting and minor automobile repair (for example, engine tune-ups and oil changes). The Golden Valley City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use in the Industrial zoning district: "Structures and premises for automobile, or other motor vehicle sales and showrooms, with incidental accessory service and repair facilities" can be found under Subdivision 4. "Conditional Uses" (attached). Also attached is a location map that shows the location of the building Lejeune is proposing to buy. As you are aware, the Planning Commission recently acted upon a subdivision application for this site. The Commission recommended that this 2.9 acre parcel be subdivided from the 3.1 acre parcel directly to the west. This western parcel would then be sold to Lube Tech at 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North. The City Council will be considering this subdivision application at their July 5th meeting. . The Building. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the existing building, which is a 1-story, brick building with a footprint of 5,832 square feet. This includes a small office and several automobile bays. The building was constructed in 1991, and was used to house the motor vehicle emissions testing station. As part of legislation passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 1999, this emission testing was no longer required for motor vehicles and the station building was closed. The building is now vacant. No changes are proposed to the building. The building houses service bays for 10 cars which are accessed through drive-in entrances. There is also a small 840 square foot office. Parking. It is the opinion of City Staff that adequate parking for this site is being provided. The Code does not have specific requirements for this exact type of automobile-related use. The closest parking requirements are for "offices" and for "gasoline service stations". Based on these uses, the site would require 47 parking spaces. The site provides for 15 spaces. It is staffs opinion that since no customers will be coming to the site, these parking requirements are excessive. The spaces provided should be adequate to accommodate the 10 employees working on the property. Also, the site plan shows a proposed parking lot for 1 00 cars. This parking lot will be used to store vehicles waiting to be serviced or waiting to be picked up. As a condition of the permit, staff suggests that parking be made available in the storage lot for employees should inadequate employee parking become an issue. . Setback/Code Issues. The subject property is zoned Industrial and is surrounded on the west and north by industrial and light industrial, on the east by industrial, and on the south by light industrial. The proposed parking lot and existing building meet the setback requirements of the Zoning Code. Environmental Issues. Because a new 36,500 square foot parking lot is proposed, the applicant is required to complete and submit a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control application. As part of that application, the applicant is providing a new stormwater retention pond on the site. A Tree Preservation application is also required. These applications have been submitted by the applicant and have been reviewed by the City Engineer and the City Environmental Coordinator. Their comments are attached for your review. . Factors for Consideration In approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to the current proposal are as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market of the proposed good or service. That criterion has been met in this case. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan identifies the proposed site for long-term industrial use. Automobile-related services, by conditional use, can be considered for that land use classification. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Approval of the CUP will not substantially alter the extent or nature of on-site development or activity. The use is compatible with other uses in the area. . 2 . 4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and Congestion in the Area: Staff believes that this land use would not cause undue congestion for this area. The applicant has indicated that they would use the travel route along Highway 169, exiting on the frontage road near Lube Tech. This traffic pattern would cause minimal traffic congestion for the area. The hours of operation will be from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. 5. Effect on any Increase in Population: Staff does not believe that the number of employees that will be on site will cause an impact to the area. 6. Increase in Noise Level: At this time, staff have no reason to expect that noise impacts will extend outside of the building. 7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration Caused by the Use: The City Inspection staff has reviewed the issues concerning this use. Their comments are attached for your review. These requirements would need to be met before occupancy. 8. Any Increase in Flies, Rats, or other Vermin on the Area Caused by the Use: There should be no increases in these pests, because the proposed business is not the sort to attract them. 9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: Any proposed signs would be regulated by the City's Inspections Department and will have to meet established standards. 10. Other Concerns Regarding the Use: Modifications to the building for the detailing of vehicles will need to be addressed by the Inspections Department. The new storage parking lot will be screened with a new 8 foot high chain link fence. Also, landscape plantings will be used to screen this parking lot from 10th Avenue North. The applicant is not proposing any additional outside storage. However, should the applicant choose to do this at a later time, all materials and equipment should be screened so as to not be visible from adjacent properties and streets and would not be permitted within the required landscaped area. . Recommended Action Staff recommends that the following conditions be made part of any approval of a Conditional Use Permit for auto-related services at 9105 10th Avenue South. An approved site plan becomes a part of the CUP approval. . 1. The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. 3 2. Only those vehicles being serviced by Lejeune's may use the building. 3. The two paved asphalt parking areas shall be the only location where motor vehicles may be parked. No parking shall be allowed within the required landscape area. 4. Any signage for the building must meet the signage requirements of the City's Inspection Department. 5. Should inadequate parking become an issue, a portion of the storage parking lot on the north part of the site shall be designated for employee parking. 6. Whenever possible, the applicant shall use the travel route along Highway169, accessing from the frontage roads near the site. 7. Any outside storage of materials shall be screened so as to not be visible from adjacent properties .or streets. No storage is permitted within the required landscape area. 8. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver as found in his memo dated June 21, 2000 become a part of this approval. 9. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated June 6, 2000 become a part of this approval. 10. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. . . Attachments: . Section 11.36, Subd. 4 . Location Map . Narrative submitted by Lejuene Investments . Memo from City Engineerl City Environmental Coordinator . Memo from Deputy Fire Marshall . Proposed Site Plans . 4 ::.. .... .. ~. 9 11.36 Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: District. A. All conditional uses as provided for in the Light Industrial Zoning B. Car wash. C. Structures and premises for automobile, or other motor vehicle sales and showrooms, with incidental accessory service and repair facilities. D. Gasoline service stations. E. Bulk storage of gas, fuel oil, chemicals, and other liquid or solid materials which may be considered hazardous or toxic. F. Mortuaries. G. Off-street parking lots for adjacent Commercial or Industrial uses. H. Outdoor sales induding motor vehicle and equipment rental. I. Drive-in mtail estahlishments, such as banks, cleaners, photo shops, restaurants (Class II), and ~imilar uses. equipment. J. Unattend~d business operations, such as vending machines and K. Temporary structures such as tents or air-supported structures. L. Railroad yards, railroad tracks and rights-of-way in such yards, railroad shops, round houses, and any other use which shall be for railroads. M. Automobile:.; repair shops, auto body repair and/or painting, and auto cleaning and reconditfoning. Source: Ordinance No. 641 Effective Date: 11-16-84 N. Heliports, as herein defined. So~rce: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 293 (6-15-98) . I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 r 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 Iz Ig! I~ 16 If/) ~ I~ laJ I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ': I.; :~-- - .- ..... -.--' .: ..' - .:_~~:..: . . Project Narrative This is a request for a Conditional Use permit for the property at 9105 1 Oth Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The property is zoned 1-1, Industrial. The current use of the property is for a vehicle inspection station, which is now closed. The applicant, LeJuene Investments, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow detailing, minor repair and temporary storage of automobiles. Per Section 11.36, Subdivision 4, City of Golden Valley Zoning Code, this is an allowed conditional use. The minor repair and detailing of automobiles will take place inside of the 5,800 square foot existing building. The storage of automobiles will be on a new 36,500 square foot asphalt parking lot. There will be approximately 10 employees on the site and the hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday - Saturday. There will be no customers coming to the site. The site will look as it is shown on the attached Site Plan. The building and adjacent parking areas will be unchanged. The existing grass mound on the front part of the site will be removed and replaced with an asphalt parking lot. The new parking lot will be enclosed by a new chain link fence. Landscape plantings will be used to screen the parking lot from 10th Avenue North. The existing stormwater detention pond to the west of the building and the existing drainage to the south of the building will be preserved as they exist. There will be a new stormwater detention pond with a weir and skimmer built next to the existing pond. We anticipate no potentially disturbing off-site impacts from . the additional development of the storage parking area. . UO/U~/UU UO;~~ CAA QL' ~~O 'UOO 1.. n D .1:01'''' or; /U\\-n ll:!.:JVV~ LHB Engineers &. ArchitectS 250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612 338-2029 Fax 612 338-2088 DATE: June 5, 2000 TO: Ed Anderson, City of Golden Valley Deputy Fire Marshall Dan Olson, City of Golden Valley, Planning Depar1m.ent FROM: Gary Findell, LHB Engineers & Architects RE: Lejeune Investments use of building at 9105 10th Avenue North Following is a clarification of building uses for 9105 10dl Avenue. The existing building will be used for the following: Minor repair, including engine tune-ups, oil changes, lubrication and brake work. Detailing, including washing, waxing, buffing, vacuuming and touch-up painting. . Painting will be limited to areas of a few square inches or less. There will be no paint shop. There will be NO open flames, welding or tor~hes used in the building as a part of this work. Sb' Gary Fin~ LHB Engineers & Architects 250 Third Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-752-6928 . cc: LHB Project No. 00520.2 O:IOOP~.:!lf\Wdoc:o\l.H81"l~O.WJ' Duluth. MN Minneapolis. MN .. . . :- PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM hlley DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 21, 2000 Mark Grimes, Director of Planning a Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer. Conditional Use Permit for Le eune Investments Public Works staff have reviewed the plans submitted for the proposed LeJeune Investments Conditional Use Permit at the former vehicle emissions testing site on 10th Avenue North. It is our understanding that the proposed use is for automotive detailing and vehicle preparation. The proposed use includes the addition of parking areas on the north end of the site. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the proposed site use is acceptable from a Public Works perspective. However, there are issues that need to be addressed prior to final approval of the development. These issues are as follows: This site is located within the Main Stem district of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Based upon the type and scope of work proposed, it has been determined that the project will be subject to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality Policy, which will include water quality ponding for the site. Review of the previous site use indicates that the pond that was constructed, which is adjacent to the site on the west, was adequate to meet the water quality requirements for that site at the time of development. Therefore, additional water quality volume must be provided when additional improvements are made on site. The proposed grading plan includes a water quality pond constructed adjacent to the existing pond. It appears that the volume of this pond is adequate to meet the Water Quality Policy requirements. The grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be submitted to the BCWMC for review and comment. The BCWMC meets on the third Thursday of each month. The plan and application form, as approved by the City, must be submitted no later than two weeks prior to the monthly meeting. In order to meet this deadline it is important that the developer submit the required plans to the City at least one month prior to the Commission meeting for review and approval. The developer will also be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit for this site. No work is to begin on site until the City Permit has . been obtained and the BCWMC has approved the project. . -- The following items must be addressed on the grading plan prior to resubmittal to the City . for review: 1) Catch basin inlet protection must be shown and clearly labeled at all storm sewer inlets on site. In addition, a standard detail plate for inlet protection must be included. 2) The normal and high water levels for the proposed pond must be labeled on the plan. 3) There appears to be a significant difference in existing spot elevations along the existing driveway in the western portion of the site. The developer's engineer should review these elevations and revise accordingly. 4) The location of silt fence must be shown on the plan along with the proposed grading. 5) The proposed gradation and quantity of rip-rap at storm sewer inlets and outlets to the pond must be shown and clearly labeled on the plan. In addition, a standard detail plate for rip-rap installation must be provided. 6) The location of a gravel construction entrance must be shown on the plan. A standard detail plate must also be provided. 7) Information regarding final site stabilization must be shown on the plans. This must include seed types, application rates and seeding methods for those areas to be seeded. 8) A note must be added to the plan requiring the developer/contractor to sweep tracked materials from all adjacent streets on a daily basis or more frequently if directed to do so by the City. Should the developer/contractor fail to perform sweeping as directed by the City, the sweeping will be performed by the City with the costs billed to the developer/contractor. . 9) A key must be included on the plan. The grading, drainage and erosion control plan, and the storm water computations must be certified by a registered professional engineer. The developer will be required to enter into a storm water pond maintenance agreement with the City for the proposed pond. This agreement will be prepared by the City and must be signed prior to approval of the building permit. Staff has received a preliminary tree preservation plan for this site that needs to be revised. The developer should contact AI Lundstrom, Golden Valley Environmental Coordinator, at 763-593-8046 for more information. Public Works staff recommends approval. of the Conditional Use Permit for LeJeune Investments. Approval should be subject to the developer addressing the issues addressed in this review prior to further approvals from the City. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Gary Johnson, Building Official Dan Olson, City Planner . \\GV ]S1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIV A TE\LEJUENE INVESTMENT 2 (EMTSTSITE)\CUP REVIEW.DOC . .. . Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: Dan Olson City Planner Ed Anderson Deputy Fire Marshal 06/06/2000 Plan review comments Listed below are my plan review comments on the Lejeune Investment Incorporated located at 9105 10th Ave North. . 1) The automatic dry fire sprinkler system shall be reevaluated for the new use of this occupancy. This reevaluated of the sprinkler system shall be completed by a fire protection sprinkler company. The reevaluated report shall be submitted to the Golden Valley Fire Department before occupancy. 2) The fire alarm system currently in the building shall serviced and tested by a fire alarm contractor. The test results shall be submitted to the Golden Valley Fire Department 3) Provide address numbers for the building. The numbers shall be legible and visible from the street or roadway. 4) Fire lane signs and stationary posts shall be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley Fire Department . 1 . June 7, 2000 9 standards. Contact the Deputy Fire Marshal for more details. 5) The fire hydrant located on the property shall be tested and inspected annually. The test results shall be sent to the Golden Valley Fire Department. 6) The building has a fire department lock box located on the building. The access keys shall be updated before occupancy. 7) Submit to the GoldenValley Fire Department an emergency list of contact names and telephone numbers. This list will be forwarded to our communication center. 8) Provide proper fire department access road in the vehicle storage area. Fire department access road is required to maintain a minimum of 20 feet 9) Provide a hazardous flammable waste trap for the car bays or verify the location of one already installed. 10) Provide audio and visual devices for the fire system in the garage area or the car bay. If you have any questions please call me at 763-593- 8065 . . . 2 ,f i t . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 22, 2000 Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II Restaurant in a Commercial Zoning District - 9050 Golden Valley Road - Alliant Engineering, Inc., Applicant . Alliant Engineering, on behalf of Border Foods, Inc., is proposing to locate a 50-seat combination Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and Pizza Hut Express fast food restaurant on existing vacant property at 9050 Golden Valley Road. Alliant was previously involved in developing the Taco Bell restaurant onWayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley. This property and the property directly to the east, Wendy's Restaurant, were once one lot. In 1993, the lot was split in two and Wendy's was built. The Golden Valley Zoning Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use in the Commercial zoning district: "Class II restaurants (drive- in, fast food, etc.)" can be found under Subdivision 4. "Conditional Uses" (attached). Attached is a location map that shows the location of the property Alliant is proposing to buy. The Property and Proposed Building. The property is currently vacant and is approximately 60,000 square feet in size (1.36 acres). The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the proposed building, which is a 1-story, masonry building with a footprint of 3,226 square feet. This includes a drive-through window on the west side of the building. . Parking. The parking on the site plan does not meet current Zoning Code requirements. The Code specifies that "at least one (1) parking space for each 35 square feet of gross floor area, or one (1) parking space for each three seats based on maximum design capacity, whichever is greater". Based on this land use formula, the site would require 92 parking spaces. The site provides for 54 spaces. The applicant has applied for a variance for these parking requirements and is scheduled to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 27th, 2000. For the drive-through, the site plan provides for enough space to stack 13 cars. Since the Zoning Code does not provide for requirements for this issue, this number of stacking spaces is adequate. Setback/Code Issues. The subject property is zoned Commercial and is surrounded on the west by Multiple Residential, on the east and south by Commercial, and on the north by Light Industrial. The proposed building meets the setback, height, and lot coverage requirements of the Zoning Code. . Environmental Issues. The applicant has submitted site plans to the City's Engineering Department. These plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer and City Environmental Coordinator. Their comments are attached for your review. The applicant would be required to meetthese requirements as part of this CUP. Factors for Consideration In approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to the current proposal are as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market of the proposed good or service. That criterion has been met in this case. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan identifies the proposed site for long-term commercial use. Fast food restaurants, by conditional use, can be considered for that land use classification. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: With the exception of the apartments to the west, neighboring properties are all developed for office, commercial or light industrial uses. No significant impact is expected for those uses. The proximity of a fast food operation to the apartments is cause for special care to be taken to protect against spillover of light and noise or other factors that could make the nearest apartment units undesirable to renters, which would have an effect of the overall property value. With appropriate conditions incorporated into the use permit, potential impacts on the apartments can be minimized. 4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and Con~estion in the Area: The City Engineer has looked at the plans and determined that the existing road system can handle the number of trips expected by the proposed use. 5. Effect on any Increase in Population: Staff does not believe that the number of employees or customers that will be on site during the day will cause a negative impact to the area. 6. Increase in Noise Level: Going from a vacant lot to a developed site will of course result in more noise being generated. For the most part, noise levels are not expected to be excessive in terms of other uses that could rightfully could locate on the site. There will be a drive- through, which means a loudspeaker and idling car engines. The currently proposed hours of operation are from 10:30 AM to 11 :00 PM, which means no early morning or late night noise. Putting a CUP . . 2 . restriction on hours of operation would provide protection against future changes, should the Planning Commission or City Council have any concerns. 7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration Caused by the Use: These are not expected to increase any more than they would for a sit- down restaurant, which would be permitted by right on this site. Most are not expected to increase at all. 8. Any Increase in Flies, Rats, or other Vermin on the Area Caused by the Use: This is a food processing operation, so there is the possibility of pests being attracted to the dumpster area. Again, this is not expected to be any worse that for a sit-down restaurant, which would be a Permitted Use on this site. 9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: This will be all new construction on a long vacant site. The preliminary landscape plan indicates greenery around the building, especially on the west side nearest the apartments. Pushing the parking to the side of the lot instead of across the front is a nice touch. The site plans show that the dumpster area, located to the rear of the restaurant is screened from view by greenery. Any proposed signs would be regulated by the City's Inspections Department and will have to meet established standards. In addition, the Building Board of Review will review this building proposal. Other Concerns Regarding the Use: No other potential sources of impact on the general public health, safety or welfare have been identified by staff as of the time of the writing of this memo. . Recommended Action Staff recommends that the following conditions be made part of any approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Restaurant at 9050 Golden Valley Road. An approved site plan becomes a part of the CUP approval. 1. The site plans, dated , submitted as part of the application for conditional use permit shall be attached and made part of this permit. 2. The hours of operation shall be from 10:00 A.M. to 11 :30 P.M., Monday through Sunday. 3. Any signage for the building must meet the signage requirements of the City's Inspection Department. 4. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver as found in his memo dated June 19, 2000 become a part of this approval. . 3 5. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated June 19, 2000 become a part of this approval. 6. Outdoor lighting shall be designed, located and used in such a way as to minimize unnecessary off-site spillover. If necessary before or after construction, the City of Golden Valley's Director of Planning and Development shall have the authority to require the site occupant to hire a lighting specialist to see that this requirement is adhered to. 7. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 8. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. . Attachments: . Section 11.36, Subd. 4 . Location Map . Narrative submitted by Border Foods, Inc. . Memo from Deputy Fire Marshall . Memo submitted by City Engineer . Proposed Site Plans . . 4 ~:. (~-.. "~. 9 11.36 Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: District. A. All conditional uses as provided for in the Light Industrial Zoning B. Car wash. C. Structures and premises for automobile, or other motor vehicle sales and showrooms, with incidental accessory service and repair facilities. D. Gasoline service stations. E. Bulk storage of gas, fuel oil, chemicals, and other liquid or solid materials which may be considered hazardous or toxic. F. Mortuaries. G. Off-street parking lots for adjacent Commercial or Industrial uses. H. Outdoor sales including motor vehicle and equipment rental. I. Drive-in rf)tail estahlishments, such as banks, cleaners, photo shops, restaurants (Class II), and ~imilar uses. equipment. J. Unattende-d business operations, such as vending machines and K. Temporary structures such as tents or air-supported structures. L. Railroad yards, railroad tracks and rights-of-way in such yards, railroad shops, round houses, and any other use which shall be for railroads. M. Automobil(S; repair shops, auto body repair and/or painting, and auto cleaning and reconditioning. . Source: Ordinance No. 64.1 Effective Date: 11-16-84 N. Heliports, as herf:in defined. So~rce: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 293 (6-15-98) . ~z . \ . ~ ~ o ~ ~ .il \\ '6 ~ o N 3^V NHOSS'30N3~ ~--------------------------------------- . . . . . Border Foods, Inc. A Franchisee of Taco Bell & Pizza Hut Corp. Polio Foods, LLC A Franchisee of KFC Corp. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd., Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55441 Telephone: 612-559-7338 Fax: 612-559-2077 To: City Council, Planning Commission and Staff of the City of Golden Valley, GoldenValley, MN Re: Narrative for CUP application Unique Site Use: This site will be used for a KFC and Pizza Hut Express quick service restaurant with a drive through serving chicken and pizza. Our company is committed to quality projects (as evidenced by our Taco Bell in Golden Valley) and integrates building design and site layout into the community. Our franchisee, Lee Engler, lives in the community and is actively involved in the operations of the company on a daily basis. This concept of a KFClPizza Hut would be the first in the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Our company is excited about the concept and believes that Golden Valley is an ideal trade area for this concept. Architecture The building will be masonry with a stucco tower and two arches to identify each brand. Menu: Full KFC restaurant menu / Pizza Hut Express Pan Pizzas (3 choices) and breadsticks with sauce Hours of Operation: Sunday-Thursday 10:30 AM to 10:00 PM Friday-Saturday 10:30 AM to 11 :OOPM These are minimum operating hours required by KFC Potential Customers Customer counts are expected to be about 2500 on average per week. lO Deliveries Deliveries occur 3-4 times per week as consolidated as we can make them. Chicken is supplied by Hudson. Ameriserve delivers remaining supplies. C02 is provided in bulk quantity. . Equipment Each concept will have its own galley style food preparation area with separate refrigeration coolers to accommodate safe food handling procedures. Employees The restaurant will have a dedicated manager and assistant. Expect total compliment of employees for noon and dinner hours to be 12 people including management. MN certified Quality Assurance Our company has a dedicated, full time individual to inspect our restaurants for quality assurance and compliance with safe food handling procedures. Off site impacts Ponding & Landscaping We will comply with the ponding requirements of the watershed district and, will attempt to landscape the pond to make it look more natural. Landscaping design will adapt the recommendations of the city staff for screening for the apartment building adjacent to the west. . . . Memorandum To: From: Date Re: Dan Olson, City Planner Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal 06/19/2000 Conditional Use Permit -- KFCI Pizza Hut . Listed below are the Golden Valley Fire Department's plan review comments for the conditional use permit for the proposed site for the KFC/ Pizza Hut location. 1) A fire/automatic sprinkler system will be required throughout the building. All exposed wood and concealed areas of the building shall be protected by the automatic sprinkler system. 2) The water main for the fire suppression system will required a post indicator valve (PIV). The PIV will be installed in accordance with recognized standards. The PIV will be electronically supervised by the fire alarm system. 3) "NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs shall be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley Fire Department requirements and in conjunction with the City of Golden Valley City Ordinance. 4) Provide and maintain the proper turning radius for fire apparatus to gain access in the parking lot and to the building. 1 June 20, 2000 5) Provide and maintain 20 feet minimum fire access road at all times. . 6) Provide audio and visual devices in the building to alert the occupants of the fire/sprinkler water flow alarm. 7) Provide an approved fire department lock box for the proposed building. Contact the Deputy Fire Marshal for more information. 8) Provide address numbers for the building. The numbers shall be position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. 9) The construction site and the building under contraction shall meet the requirement as listed in the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Article 87. 10) The commercial kitchen exhaust system for the deep fryers, ovens etc shall be protected by the automatic sprinkler . systems. 11) The exhaust systems shall meet the requirements for the installation and maintenance in accordance with NFPA 96. 12) The Fire Department Connection (FOC) for the sprinkler system shall not be obstructed by any materials (gas meter, landscaping materials and etc.). If you have any questions please call me at 763/593-8065 . 2 .Jti. " . . . Hey PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 19, 2000 Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~~ Conditional Use Review of Pi~KFC Public Works staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed Pizza HutlKFC Conditional Use Permit. This proposed development is located on Golden Valley Road west of Decatur Avenue. This site is located within the Main Stem subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Because of the size and nature of the project, it must comply with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality Policy. Based upon the policy, this development is required to provide water quality ponding and implement best management practices on site. The grading plan, which was submitted for review, includes a pond along the north edge of the property. The pond appears to be sized appropriately to meet the water quality requirements for the site. The developer must submit plans and storm water computations to the BCWMC following approval of the plans by the City. This submittal must include an application form signed by the City and have both sides of the form completed. This development will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit prior to beginning work on site. The following issues need to be addressed on the Grading Plan: 1) The grading plan must include the proposed storm sewer on site. 2) The location of the storm sewer inlet protection must be shown on the grading plan. 3) A note must be added to the plan directing the contractor to sweep all adjacent streets on a daily basis, or more frequently if directed by the City. Failure to perform the sweeping as required will result in the City performing the sweeping with all costs billed to the developer/contractor. 4) The outlet from the storm water pond must be a submerged outlet in order to meet the skimming requirements of the Water Quality Policy. '" -. . 5) The normal and 100 year high water levels for the pond must be labeled on the grading plan. 6) The plan must identify the turf reestablishment plans for the site, including areas to be sodded or seeded. Seed types, application rates and seeding methods must also be identified. The developer will be required to enter into a pond maintenance agreement with the City for the water quality pond being constructed on site. This agreement will be prepared by the City and must be signed prior to issuance of a building permit. The Utility Plan indicates that the watermain serving this site is located south of the south curb line of Golden Valley Road. The developer's engineer should investigate the possibility of directional boring the water service into this site in order to eliminate the need to open cut Golden Valley Road. A City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way permit will be required for all work within the right- of-way for Golden Valley Road. Based upon this review, Public Works staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permitfor Pizza HutlKFC subject to the plans being revised to incorporate the comments contained in this review. . Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official . \\GV FS1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\TACO BELL.PIZZA HUT\CUP REVIEW.DOC 2 . . . M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 20, 2000 Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Discussion of Zoning Code Amendment - Essential Services in Institutional Zoning District Purpose At the April 24th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the possibility of revising the text of the Golden Valley Zoning Code to allow certain Essential Services in the Institutional Zoning District. At that meeting, the Commission asked the Open Space and Recreation Commission to review the issue and give their input on allowing these uses in parks, playgrounds, and golf courses. Since this input has now been given, Staff would like to revisit this issue with the Planning Commission. Open Space and Recreation Commission Discussion At the May 22nd Open Space and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission discussed whether to allow Essential Services, class II in the Institutional zoning district, subdistrict 4 (parks, playgrounds, golf courses, city buildings, and fire stations). The following are some ideas from the Commission: · Consider whether it is better to allow in the 1-4 subdistricts antennas on city buildings and fire stations only. At a minimum, antennas should not be allowed in more "natural" areas or parks. . If you decide to allow antennas in parks, playgrounds and golf courses, do not allow large monopoles and only allow on existing structures, such as light poles. Whenever possible, antennas should be camouflaged. Also, maintenance of the antennas should not restrict the use of the park. . . . Essential Services in Institutional District Subdistricts Staff is asking the Planning Commission to consider allowing Essential Services, class \I in subdistricts 1-4. 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 as a Conditional Use. the following are the current uses allowed in each subdistrict: Subdistrict 1: Subdistrict 2: Subdistrict 3: Subdistrict 4: Churches and schools Libraries, Museums, and Colleges Rest homes, nursing homes and clinics Golf courses, parks, playgrounds, city offices and fire stations Currently, Essential Services, class \I are allowed as a Permitted Accessory use in the Business and Professional Offices zoning district, the Commercial zoning district, the Light Industrial zoning district, and the Industrial zoning district. 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. Other Cities ReQuirements As a comparison, attached are the requirements for this type of use in similar zoning districts. 2 . . . Recommended Action This item is presented for your discussion and possible action. Attachments · Section 11.46 -- Institutional zoning district · Requirements for Other Cities · Sample Photos of Camouflaged Antennas · Article on PlanninQ for Cellular Towers · Article on A Wireless Miscellany 3 , ~ - 9 11.45 2. Recreational facilities such as ballfields, swimming pools and playgrounds. 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) S 11.46 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. Sub-District: A. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-1 Institutional Zoning 1. ChUtches. 2. Schools, 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: 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 . . , , ~ S 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 D. The following uses shall be permitted in the 1-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-District: 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 fit ~ , S 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 treatmentfacilities 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 310 (6-15-98) S11.46 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 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. Source: Ordinance NO.609 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.) ~" . . e . e . . . CITY OF PLYMOUTH 21175.07. PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE ANTENNAS: Subd. 1. Residential District and PubliclInstitutional District Standards. (a) Antennas Located Upon A Public Structure Or Existing Tower: Personal wireless service antennas located upon public structures or existing towers shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: (1) The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage or capacity analysis prepared by a professional engineer that location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate wireless coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive zoning district. (2) Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear or side yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate. (3) An administrative permit is issued in compliance with the provisions of Section 21025 of this Chapter. a.Antennas Not Located Upon A Public Structure Or Existing Tower: Personal Wireless Service antennas not located upon a public structure or existing tower shall require the processing of a conditional use permit and shall comply with the following standards: (1) The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage or capacity analysis prepared by a professional engineer that location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the wireless system and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district. 1 . . . (2) If no existing structure which meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for mounting purposes, the antennas may be mounted on a monopole tower provided that: a. The pole not exceed seventy-five (75) feet in height. b. The setback of the pole from the nearest residential structure is not less than the height of the antenna. Exceptions to such setback may be granted if a qualified structural engineer specifies in writing that any collapse of the pole will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. (3) Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear or side yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate. (4) At the discretion of the City, a security fence not greater than eight (8) feet in height with a maximum opacity of fifty (50) percent shall be provided around the support structure. 1. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 21015 of this Chapter are considered and determined to be satisfied. (c) Temporary Mobile Towers: Personal wireless service antennas in PubliclInstitutional Districts located upon a temporary mobile tower used on an interim basis shall require the processing of an Administrative Permit and shall comply with the following standards: I.Temporary mobile towers are exempt from co-location and permanent tower structure design standards contained in Section 21175.02. Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, Section 21175.03, and Section 21175.10. 1. The termination date of the permit shall not exceed one hundred and twenty (120) days. Temporary mobile towers located on a site longer than one hundred and twenty (120) days shall require the processing of an Interim Use Permit subject to the standards contained in Sections 21020 and 21175. 2.Guyed towers are prohibited. 3.Mobile units shall have a minimum tower design windload of eighty (80) miles-per-hour, or be setback from all structures a 2 . . . distance equal to the height of the tower. 4.All towers shall be protected against unauthorized climbing. 5.The height of the tower shall not exceed ninety (90) feet. 6.Temporary towers shall be prohibited in residential zoning districts. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the following residentially zoned locations: (a) Church sites, when camouflaged as steeples or bell towers; (b )Park sites, when compatible with the nature of the park; and, (c )Govemment, school, utility, and institutional sites. CITY OF EAGAN Public facilities district. A. Permitted uses. Within any public facilities district, no structures or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the council: public structures, parks, playgrounds, camping grounds, swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, churches, schools, hospitals and building mounted antennae and satellite dishes and antennae on a city water reservoir tank or tower and public utility tower mounted antennae, subject to the regulations thereof in this Code. 3 . . . CITY OF ROSEVILLE Private And Commercial Antennas And Towers: l.City-Owned Antennas And Towers: City-owned or controlled antennas and tower sites shall be a permitted use in B Business or I Industrial Districts and a conditional use in all other districts. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Towers for Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Services and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the following residentially- zoned locations: 1. Parks, when compatible with the nature of the park; 2. Schools; 3. Public streets and rights-of-way when attached to, or part of a public utility structure. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK For towers in residential districts (which have as a Permitted Use, parks and open space), the following conditions imposed: 1). Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna. 2). Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts. 4 . . . 3). Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard or bufferyard. 4). Tower structures shall be maximum of forty-five feet high (in R-I and R-2) In R-3 limited to 52.5 feet, in R-4, to 60 feet. 5). A free standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 ~ times its collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located. 6). Any tower exceeding 50 feet in height shall be painted light blue-gray in color. 7). For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building is not possible. 8). For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure. 9). If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum of twice its height from any "R-I, R-2, or R-3" zoned parcel. 5 . Sample Photos of Camouflaged Antennas q.- tt'lt'\ .....t " l>- t< t'lt" ()'.f'\ \ ~ A n+e","tl.- \ . Article: Planning for Cellular Towers http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/cam 128.html PIa Cellu. c. owers by Ben, Campanelli 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 of a 195 foot wireless communication "utility" facility proposed in an R-l residential district. Why So Many Towers? , 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 Role of County & Regional Planning http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/cam 128.html .' e Article: Planning for Cellular Towers 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 t.ake 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 oftowers (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. . 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 Analysis." in Wireless Miscellany. . e , Article: Planning for Cellular Towers .- .- I http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/cam 128.html 9. Provide planning and engineering assistance to communities, including help withreview of tower applications. Time To Go Home 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 stem-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: http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wirem isc.html . e Article: A Wireless Miscellany A Wireless Miscellany .. -. ' . by Wayne SeD e,>Editor of the Planning Commissioners Journal 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 Analvsis . "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 reoorted a 43.4 oercent increase in customers . e . e Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html 1 .- .- I 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. Rt'tum to T~lble of Contents of '\Tireless 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 (MT A) and 493 basic trading areas (BT A). Retum to Tublc ofContcnts of Wireless Miscellanv 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. " 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. Hetum to Table of Contents of Wireless Miscellanv Co-Location http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html . e \rticle: A Wireless Miscellany 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 ofthe 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-location. 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 Return to Table ofCOIltents of Wireless Miscellany . - Camouflaging Towers J Article: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html fit , ~ 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. Ih'turn to Table of Contents of "\\'ireless Miscellany 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." o\rtic1e: 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 Hctum to T~lble of Contents of \Vireless Miscellany "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 :J Article: A Wireless Miscellany ~ ~ ~ http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html In implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 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/ J{t'tum 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 Miscelhmv J Article: A Wireless Miscellany. http://www.plannersweb.com/artic1es/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 ifit 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. " Retum to Table of Contents of 'V ire less 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 e Radiofrequency fields, including microwaves, are within the non-ionizing spectrum, 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 e. 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 e September 1, 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 J Article: A Wireless Miscellany .. '" '" http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/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 Hctum to Table of Contents of 'V ire less Miscellany 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 rulemaking: "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 rulemaking goes on to state that: "To the extent that state and local ordinances result in delays that make it impossible for broadcasters to meet om 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." I\.rticle: A Wireless Miscellany http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/wiremisc.html More information on this rulemaking is available at the FCC's web site: http://www .fcc. gov /state&locall Return to Table of Contents of '''ireless Miscelhlllv 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 Cleisz at: 707-938-3743 (phone) . Vermont Environmental Board. David Grayck at: 802-828-5444 (phone) . Windhan1 Regional Commission. Vennont. 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. Hetunl to Table of Contents ()f'~/irelcss Miscellanv Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal. You are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- or to provide a link to this article from another Web site. For other use of the article, please contact the Planning Commissioners Journal. . . . e . -