The URL can be used to link to this page

04-11-88 PC Agenda � � ' Golden Valley Planning Commissic�n Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road Apri1 11, 1988 7:00 P.M. � I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1988 ' II. RESET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE' PERMIT APPLICANT: Mui Li Wan, Inc. - LOCATION: 2300 Nevada Avenue North ' REQUEST: Conditi'onal Use Permit to Allow Food Processing That Involves "cooking, heating, smoking, soaking or marinating° in an Industrial Zoning District III. SET DATE EOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PLAT OF` VALLEY SQUARE THIRD ADDI?ION APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley LOCATION: Golden Valley Road Between Winnetka Avenue North and`Wisconsin Avenue North REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary Plat of Valley Square Third Addition IV. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - 'PLAT Of GOLDEN VALLEY CIVIC CENTER � APPLICANT:' City of Golden Valley LOCATION; 7800 Golden Valley Road ' REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary P1at of Golden Valley Civic Center V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Marc Teren LOCATION: - 120 Meadvw Lane North REQUE5T: Rezoning from the Single-Family (R-1) to the Two-Family (R-2) Zoning District VI. IPIFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TEREN ADDITION APPLICANT: Marc Teren LDCATI4N:- 120 Meadow Lane North � REQUEST: Approval of Plat to A1Tow for Zero Lot Line Division ViI. REPORT 4N CITY COUNCI'L MEETING � VIII. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE - DISH ANTENNAS MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION � March 28, 1988 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meet- ing was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7:03 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Kapsner, Leppik, McCracken-Hunt, Prazak and Russell . Commissioners Lewis and McAleese were absent. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and Gloria Andersan, Planning Secretary. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 14, 1988 It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner Kapsner, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1988 meeting. II . SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Mui Li Wan, Inc. LOCATION: 2300 Nevada Avenue North REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Food Processing That Involves "cooking, heating, smoking, soaking or marinating" in an Industrial Zoning District � This item was introduced by Chair Prazak and reviewed by Director Grimes. The Planning Commission set April 11, 1988 as the date for the informal public hearing to consider the request by Mui Li Wan, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit. III. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Marc Teren LOCATION: 120 Meadow Lane North REQUEST: Rezoning from the Single-Family Residential (R-1) to the Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zoning District IV. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: Marc Teren LOCATION: 120 Meadow Lane North REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat of Teren Addition to Al1ow for Zero Lot Line Division The two above items were introduced by Chair Prazak and reviewed by Director Grimes. The Planning Commission set April 11, 1988 as the date for the informal � public hearing to consider the request by Marc Teren to rezone the property at S20 Meadow Lane North and to consider approval of the Preliminary Plat of Teren Addition. t , Minutes of the Golden Ua11ey Planning Commission March 28, 1988 Page 2 � V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Judy DuPaul LOCATION: 2900 Lee Avenue North REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Small Pet Grooming Business as a Home Occupation in the Single-Family Residential Zoning District Chair Prazak introduced this agenda item and asked Director Grimes for a review of the staff report. Director Grimes noted that any uses in the home occupation ordinance that were not specifically permitted or prohibited, such a a pet grooming business, would require a conditional use permit. He stated that staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request with some restrictions. Planning Commissioners had concerns and questions regarding the proposed home occupation including the number of dogs that would be outside at any given time, how long the pets would stay at the residence and how many the proponent planned to care for during one day and the number of car trips it would create. � Ms. Judy DuPaul , the proponent, was present to answer questions from the Commissioners. She stated she was new to this business and would only be able to groom two dogs in one day at the present time which would create a maximum of four car trips per day, and that if she would be able to handle more than four, . she would probably look for a location in a commercial area. She also indicated that she had a large driveway which would accommodate customers' cars. Ms. DuPaul stated said that the animals would not be put outside by themselves, that if they had to go out, she would personally take them out on a leash as she was respon- sible for them while at her home. Chair Prazak opened the Informal Public Hearing. Mr. Clayton Christian, 2741 Kyle Avenue North, stated he came to hear exactly what Ms. DuPaul was proposing and that his questions had been answered. He was concerned that there would be barking dogs, additional noise and messes in the neighborhood. Mr. Arnold Roland, 2940 Major Avenue North, felt that things happening in the neighborhood should be something to enhance the neighborhood and increase property values and not a business such as this. He was against the proposed home occupation. Mr. Jeffrey Fick, 4300 Culver Road, indicated that he was speaking for himself and his wife, Jill . They had concerns about the additional traffic in the - neighborhood because of the close proximity of the elementary school , walking trails and park, and because there were no sidewalks in the area. He also � indicated that he felt this type of business was no different than a kennel or animal hospital which are prohibited under the home occupation ordinance. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 28, 1988 Page 3 � stated they felt that a residential neighborhood was no place for a pet grooming business and emphasized that it should not be permitted. Chair Prazak also introduced a letter from John and Joan Walker, 2924 L'ee Avenue North, who had concerns about barking dogs, additional traffic and home occupa- tions in general . The Informal Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Leppik briefly reviewed the purpose and intent of the home occupa- tion ordinance. She stated that a small pet grooming business was completely different than an animal hospital or kennel which both employ additional help and create a much larger volume of traffic. Commissioner Leppik felt that the business should be limited to having only four pets in one day and one animal outside at a time. Several other Commissioners agreed that the number of pets coming to the home in one day should be limited to four. This would create a maximum of eight car trips to the home which would not be significant. Commissioner Russell stated she felt strongly that the number of pets should be limited to three during one day. � Chair Prazak asked what the City could do if the proponent did not meet the conditions of the conditional use permit. Director Grimes stated that if the City were to receive complaints regarding the home occupation, they would be checked out. It was moved by Commissioner Leppik and seconded by Commissioner Kapsner to recommend City Council approval of the request by Ms. Judy DuPaul for a condi- tional use permit to allow for a small pet grooming business in a Single-Family Residential Zoning District under the home occupation ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than four (4) pets may be on the premises for grooming on any one day. 2. No dogs or cats that have been groomed shall be kept overnight. 3. The yard or a portion of the yard shall be fenced for dogs or cats to go outside. 4. No more than one (1) animal brought in for grooming shall be outside at any one time and shall be on a leash. Upon vote the motion carried 4 - l. Commissioner Russell voted against the recommendation for approval . � - Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 28, 1988 . Page 4 � VI. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING CODE - CHILD CARE AND DISH ANTENNAS Director Grimes reviewed his recommendation of amending the Zoning Code to allow for all types of child care facilities by conditional use permit in the Commercial , Business and Professional Offices, Light Industrial and -Industrial Zoning Districts. Planning Commissioners agreed and directed staff to prepare amendments to the Zoning Code. Discussion on the amendment to allow dish antennas was postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting to allow input from Commissioner McAleese. VII. REPORT ON MARCH 15, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Commissioner Lewis was not present to provide a report on the March 15, 1988 City Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. � � Apri1 6, 1988 � � T0: Golden Ualley Planning Commission FROM: Alda Wilkinson, City Planner _ SUBJECT: Reset Informal Public Hearing Date - Mui Li Wan, Inc. - 2300 Nevada Avenue North . This Informal Public Hearing has been postponed at the request of the applicant to allow additional time for revisions to the site plan: Staff suggests that the Planning Commission reset the Informal Public Hearing Date for April 25, 1988. � . � � ; • Apri1 6, 1988 � � . T0: Go�den Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development . SUBJECT: Set Date for Informal Public Hearings - Preliminary Plats of Valley Square 3rd Addition and Golden Ualley Civic Center Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an Informal Public Hearing date of April 25, 1988 for consideration of the preliminary plats of Va11ey Square 3rd Addition and for the Golden Valley Civic Center. � � r . April 7, 1988 � T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development - SUBJECT: 1) Rezoning of Proposed Teren Addition from Residential to Single-Family (R-2) and 2) Minor Subdivision to Create Teren Addition at 120 Meadow Lane North - Marc Teren, Applicant Marc Teren has requested the subject two actions in order to allow for the addition of a second housing unit on the rear of the existing home at 120 Meadow Lane North. The home is currently owned and occupied by Lawrence and Pamelyn �reiberg. Mr. Teren has a contract to purchase the property subject to City approvals for the two-family home. In order to permit the construction of a two-family home at this location and allow for both units to be sold separately, two actions are needed. First, the property must be rezoned to R-2 to allow the two-family dwelling. Second, the property must be subdivided into two lots as per Section 440.170(B) of the Sub- division Code. This subdivision will be the first under the revised Subdivision Code that allows for a minor subdivision for double bungalows. � Rezoning The property to be rezoned is located at 120 Meadow Lane North, one lot south of Sunnyridge Lane. The property is currently zoned Residential (single-family) . I do not believe there are any two-family homes located in this neighborhood. The property is 39,600 square feet in area (132'x299' ). The property has 132' of frontage on Meadow Lane. The existing house is set back about 100 feet from Meadow Lane. The two lots that are proposed by the subdivision together greatly exceed the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet for a two-family home. Lot A is proposed to be 16,847 square feet and Lot B 22,753 square feet. The other lots in the area come in a mixture of sizes. The adjacent single-family lots on Roanoke Circle are in the 13,000 to 15,000 square foot range. The two adjacent lots on Sunnyridge are approximately 19,300 square feet and 16,000 square feet. Therefore, the two proposed lots exceed the size of all but one of the adjacent lots. The general low density character of the neighborhood would be maintained. Other concerns regarding the rezoning should be reviewed. They are: A) Traffic - The second unit would generate another 7 -10 trips per day over the single-family home now on the site. I have discussed this matter with the City Engineer and it is his opinion that Meadow Lane North can handle this additional traffic. � � r Golden Va11ey Planning Commission April 7, 1988 � Page 2 B) Drainage - This lot slopes fron� the south to the north. There is an existing drainage ditcfi along the north property line that will carry storm;water to a storm sewer that is in Meadow Lane. I have spoken to the City Engineer about this matter and he said the additional unit should not have a significant impact on drainage in the area. C) Effect on Surrounding Property Values - The proposed two units are planned to sell for $250,000 each. Each unit has about 3,200 square feet of living space (excluding the basements) . The homes in this neighborhood are high value homes. However, I believe that these proposed units will be equal to or exceed the value of the surrounding homes. I have analyzed the market value on ten of the surrounding homes. They range in value from $93,500 to $184,000 with most being in the $140,000 range. These market values are generally 10% - 15% less than true market value in this area. D) UtiTity Services - There is adequate sewer and water systems to serve this additional unit. E) Alternatives - One alternative would be the platting of two single-family lots - one behind the existing house. This would be ,permissible by the Subdivision Code. It is my understanding that Mr. Teren has considered this arrangement but he prefers to minimize the necessary removal of vegetation from the rear yard. If a single family home was built, he believes that many � more of the existing trees and shrubs would have to be removed for building and driveway. With the proposed plan, the building wi11 extend to the east only about as far as it does now, leaving the yard area essentially as is. Recommendation ' I am recommending approval of the rezoning. The proposed two-family home does not change the low density character of the neighborhood. The proposed two attached homes will be of a value that is compatible with the neighborhood and should therefore not decrease property values. I do not believe that there are any other issues that indicate that this proposed use of the property for a side by side, two-home building would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Platting Section 440.140(B) of the revised Subdivision Code allows for a minor subdivision for a double bungalow. This allows for a lot to be split in two along a property line in order that each side may be sold. Mr. Teren has submitted a sketch of the property (attached). This sketch indicates the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Code: and Zoning Code. The Zoning Code requires that a two-family home must be located on at least 12,000 square feet. The proposed Teren Addition is a total of 39,600 � square feet. Lot A is 16,847 square feet and Lot B is 22,753 square feet. r ' Golden Valley P1anning Commission Apri1 7, 1988 Page 3 � The proposed double home greatly exceeds the minimum setback requirement of 35 feet front setback, 15 feet side yard set back and a rear yard setback ofi 20% of the lot depth. • The Subdivision Code requires that all lots must have at least 20 feet of frontage on a street. In order to give the rear lot (Lot 6) that front�ge, Mr. Teren is proposing to have 20 feet of frontage on Meadow Lane for Lot B. This 20 feet is over the proposed driveway to the rear unit. The owner of Lot A will have an easement to use this driveway. Therefore, it will be a shared driveway to reduce the number of driveway cuts on Meadow Lane. Section 440.140(B)(2) lists five conditions that must be met to allow for this minor subdivision for a double bungalow. Mr. Teren has agreed to all of these. They are: A) The property shall be split into two substantially equal parcels. - The two lots are about the same size except that Lot B is larger due to the driveway portion of the lot. B) This structure must meet current building code standards for fire wall separation. - This provision must be met in order to build such a double home in Golden Valley. Mr, Teren and his architect have agreed to meet all such requirements. � C) Separate utilities to each unit must be provided. - Mr. Teren will provide separate utilities to the second unit as shown on the site plan. D) The owner shall execute and record a "Deciaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions". - Mr. Teren has met with his attorney to begin drafting such covenants. These covenants will be reviewed by our City Attorney prior to this plat being given final approval . A draft of these covenants will be available for review by the Planning Commission on April 11. The covenants will cover those issues stated in the Subdivision Code. If the Planning Commission believes other issues should be covered in the covenants, those suggestions should be made. One suggestion could be that Mr. Teren is specifically tied to the plan as submitted at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Teren will present architectural plans and renderings at the April ll Planning Commission meeting. These plans will give the Planning Commission a better idea of the extent of the proposal . It is my understanding that the existing house will be remodeled and added to and that the second unit will be built on the rear of the house. In order to accommodate the second unit, an addition that was built on the house in 1970 or so will be removed to take the existing house back to its original footprint. The second unit will then extend east from the � "original" house. The proposed second house will not extend very much furthe'r to the east than the existing addition that is to be removed. All in a]1 , it is a very extensive and ambitious proposal . � � _ P ' Golden Valley Planning Commission Apri1 7, 1988 � Page 2 Recommendation I recommend appraval of the subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Separate utility services are provided to each unit. 2. The "Declaration of Covenants" is submitted in final form to the City Attorney for review before the final plat of the Teren Addition is submitted for final approvaT by the City Council . The Covenants, at a minimum, must address those conditions listed in Section 440.140(B)(2)(d) . Enclosures: 1. Site Location Map 2. Site/Plot Plan (enclosed separately) � � . IOJ IV7 r�.,w o. � 1,t� _ .,+ . fJ D , . �y ' = !33 /o ; �r � v � _ � .�Q�_t16_ � = � � ~ • 5 Iet • �T1 /10 , i° � •� � '+ � � lZo— ',��d ' i� � .�+i� � � � 120 �• �_!�e � �, � � � �. �, o. r.`Q � Ilo i!9 'V E.. t8 � ��.... „ � • _ �. 3 �...c� �\�o •.�5 u5 i23 p� pl 'It• �r� •' � � j , . r., , � • 3 r3o 30 �o � ' ' i ,r, ��., i ery'� � • r ,�0/ 1D0 '� I?0 �,0 ��0 �• � �, .sGO "b •� �.. o � -t, . ', �- - , f �10 `3i It ;,�•' �o � ,,p'�; � 3,, :•' �j ,6� ,.�,� � � Jn,+ �• � • �, � y* ' a, ,� � �,\ `' ' ,'e'CC+ , S • b '�`�.,00 �,; ' � ;o. ,� �•i d;s� -, ,v,`o ,�r" ' � • `' 1' � . ' = r •� 4 � - . • � ��sy e oO o • � '. Si� .� • 0 0 �P �� !` I , ,lOS� .. ..� �� : e ' ��L , w . �� N .O� y 1 !�v � /.t� J ' `-' +1 'Z '+.��'� � Ili.4 v�'� ��. ' 1 110 110 j.l i' �` n/,%\ 4,*�tp -%a `'' , ��° •l, '�"• �? ' 110 0 � � v Y� ��. y `' � � Il�. t � ' �. //s�R.� � ti .:, • JFf r S SO'�:.�r�. l io . O �. �;►. ;� V►. �'if,..,�� , ��.. � �� b'1 G� I',1 i10 � �� • _ ,. f Q''9 l�.�j N _ t— --e�. � , - i �J ' �2 � �` J �� w �..� � �� 39G � ° O t'f • � � � y� :r • . _ n �`r • :n �+ N / /o ., `, o V+ � o 0 0 N � ��r a � a"' y�'�" � zo9 • p l ��,� • ; � � ! �� )2SD� 53�r.�d�i4�li�� IIC � 110 3.?i9 j ��'. N o w � r, � �f,'2G � L, 1:1 �� ... ,?7 � ��p a �,�. :� .;�, , e ; ,�,�. „5 � aR►V f :tj� 9�,J � y �-. � RE 1 •� t-e ;,}}�MQ ' �b� !t i66 C � N �, s' .�t .��r. pC�v •� �o a �j�. � � : � ��z i 9.� �:;; 6t i t `, s! N o ^� • s� �,. � �3bti� �t'4 �a.c�. t��. a3i ,� --ItS �t�i��i4... ' �a`t N• °° -� � �a : q�'� .�-'r 2, zq � �OC . � � . �� 200 ��f. 7 • � ., . . B o �B � � � � , , '_�,� ' �;' ,Q�',"� �r, � `' y4U . a i • ,� ,_ �o ... ._+ �•'�a �6! � n _� o `: . c � _y !� N� .J �• � � V+ � 'w .P ° W - N � •V"''`.a s'�, .o�� , / W P�° � •`� f . W O 0 � � � . � V' I� . ~ � D` .r'� o.. . j GQ O �y� . �,� /7.r i � �.2 � N��R�� .9 �Z� �� _ � S. 33 itc Itc Iio Ilo �• Ilo � --ItS �� iZ It5 30 � ' "'�h ��coo `'�"- � �� a 3r �4 /� �,.!h �1l5, i33 w �� Z N fh '�^3 i+�� I �t !00 ♦•• � S .. \.i' ` 4 :�T /� er �� 'O� t�� s � ,,, �, •.��:.i o�. ��' �, �' O �•t7� D C r � L �� di � �I>>:r�F' .:r , .tSL r V,.1S1�'r �p° � „ �� .t> 4 a ' r �^ �' ,� o�,. � � R ra- r � ' : O a r''•' j�i R 'tl .., ./ a �• �1t11"a� '� w .' a . !3 9e a �� r' y' ,� ,j ,~^i. A w _ `0°° •�S . Mf��OW ��3' .. v, ` ��.F 1 �SP^' r" ' :� 2 i 9. �6 � o �, ��•ti��i�.$ � v� w � s t.w h � • i � �a ~ - i� � � = 4 0� );+ _. 1 � �� c. N,.1.4 is �' A_�M ��. ~' p w.^ j. 'VN1 /- �t,�4�. y .��" ,`�, � Ayj.= -�. v� �,V.��1 � 1010:"�r ' : � N W .p " N Y�243': �li.,�jje T �� ,vl `y � �� n � N � . � v� _��_ f►'{� . � /� n� z�+SS st lticn .�� ti� w ba'= o�'� I < ' i1c V v �=y kl•'�,_'op�'° f1.135C W • �`�Sg�. E .`',yti�, �-^ � �� a. r ;�.� k ` � _ r.� �,,,.t.. wo �� 139 iC r: i + i•. 1. + �� . V ; � II):4- - - �10.� �. �� a ..�. � a �� • ' N f,[R� �5�2 - �+ NOOL�O�N'1L1 S. J �. ;,^� ,: �, a o � t^ �t,?`4 �.. ,rs��09J, N �Se'e5�lo°f •� i S � -_ i�d S�Cf i55 � �•ni� Lai u.. +.( V� `.°, � "\, N Zod'7c g �ti� e S o v5'9o'f � � 3i3 S7 �� '��,,,• o •.� ; c � 7.,� iee� t �� NDIANA wr .AVE. ' � . `�'o"- �O r^ ' � t O , `a RI H� d' � � ,� b tw.y,�� .. , ° 3iZ��i a < • -� i2 i5 - 4' a ��.ea-�` � � � � t.�,. • .i'` ��' � w � ! ., C �ii f . , �_.- e�+ :�c� � . ` '�� • • .�—iso-. �'+!` ?518 , - i55 � i 3 � �Ultc_a°- � f� assolt �� - „ w : _ : �� 'b`~ - S 'll 232 Z �° > IOOI-- - 16S�S� 115 'N' ` ro�TiG�i ,�11 _r� ,�o. � � ri, s' O W. '. �I, � � ' V � � t � ` . .O1 D ! � ', ~ ��`o � �. � N � 1 �.o M • � ` � _I{i1 m � `1` � ,' ,,, �• � a ^' f'f w m �i � v r. W � f0!t� - ��1` � � +.N �0r �1° p � F � � � .�� p � g J � S � °�^�o,v„` ',,,,�A* C .� �Ir�.+ 7�+ � � r � °�ZIt1�p_ w �115�1 f1.t � ..} o� .. �'• � .�i �, � • � p�� , � _ -� �- -,€ 5: B,f�� + NT .� t;�° .,t '"�40 ?r9 S.o!I�f ?4S ' IS'LS v` •� A �`d" 5 �: '` . i, 'O_ ,,- r�_SO•'-n'E � i45 �3 IOi ., loo � : : .02 o s �N E :i.� 1— �i3.0 --- '�►� a _��1�'�'�F'a4� p" ?00 5C E !�1 3�E =1: � u+ '�r� ko.� ,i � 700 ?PO' • _. . e /? • �'7p � �- •i B� .i 2i °�59 a �� S�i.30 �46 30 �J0.1� a� �� "� : 33 , - _ _ � � -� � . 1�0 �� • a ` � � � _ _ �. � �, , o�^ooF$ �,a� o, � ° �~ o 0 290 4 .� �,c� �. � • o ._, 'o �+ w .. �.i . �cti,m � _._._.__� £' •� �' q .�' � ° ` .._ w • �e • ��oc� �rn � •'� r �� + ` N � � '� � .. I � � ��I�� :m. lm� � � � � '. � '' e � �`�J50.0� �Drj ,�`,OM„M�° o. � � ' p� ' � .; � � � ' � � � � �•^ - I - �� •�C �D , � � . (7 a �.S q�S � . .'1• Iif n . y+ N = o �D Oo �` ♦ . • . — • _ o �N4� . ;�.o�. � 1, z• � ��`�ark(/CI �"� �. *. : " _ _ . EK � \1 .� � „� - (..'.<:cN� � i�=-�fet�SfE, - I • , �/, �'"c ! -�+� �: .-+ 3,.^3 � 3�� N� = 94�<r .5�:5 9:'4 r T ��2Z� :� � '�B:L�'j�' ��. ''° ° � B � >- ' �,�� n6 �0�'t� � t � �� ,4 /'•, ' g . � �L/ v� Gi+o tr± , � •o� � ;'�/Ay�� •. • . ,`r' �' • � g � �1 e N�e�'t7'w �y:` � �75�1_i .��.5, ;� � �,, � r.. . i . • � ,,, a�� •° f ♦ . � C � 'v� r \ � , vL`Q�ILQ � �. j V � , o W � �,�- • `" � �'�'tv� e c'wz� � •eti � � ��Y? : `�r..�e �� .4,r�� `r�°" �� ,.� � ~ro;�a �,► W °+ � � �� _ '��` ��.05 ` �, � � _ , . _ • -00 1:.�-.; •..; "e0t,. x ti.- �P�'� �•� �r,��, y? • rn �, = a CIRCL � ts .,� , r �o^� . �,. � , _ . - ,� ° i � p f r,`•'_ �t E°7� 4i?�f.° i°t � S o��w• ��' '�:''�' �•+' .-' '' o��3� I " 129 38 y° �i1t4 rp o�e _ 1 ��N�"Ic � 1 W t�^�y �.�i � i p �� isi w�4 D O E� G��6'09'14' o O �m i ! v � � - N � \ b �O e � i^ :r ,i :r r+ �: O N •-�•�0 �n o, 2 A �,a \�. � � b � �� ♦ � � '� a. °' O�, �, A q • M • .O Q�. �N . '�\ w d`�r� J �p � ' . . � .OS. ��I • O Ce � � m•� W W �! e\ O, ... � �� ' j ri b 5001'SO"E ° 13 35 6'^ Sev*r ,� �io� a" �3'� °` .�� i2a s�,� i�8's c.sc ._ 35.c � • 3.)y SF: _1' •.. .:.:. ->'_S� - � ' �.. . . . I2C� MeadswG2NE�1o. N ... tc36.63R�s ... i 7 March 23, 1988 � T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Alda Wilkinson, City Planner - SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Code - Provision for Dish Antennas At the request of the Planning Commission, Planning staff has reviewed treat- ment of dish antennas under the City of Golden Valley Zoning Code. City staff previously researched provision for dish antennas in December 1984 and concluded at that time that existing Zoning Code provisions adequately addressed dish antennas. Under the current Zoning Code dish antennas are treated as accessory structures subject to the setback and height restrictions applicable to struc- tures within each individual zoning district. Dish antennas usage has changed somewhat since 1984. Residentiai use of small microwave dish antennas has lost popularity. According to the December 1987 Zoning News published by the American Planning Association, private home use of the larger satellite dish antennas is also decreasing, but commercial use of satellite dish antennas is increasing. Concern is with the visual appearance of satellite dish antennas, which range � in size from 10 to 18 feet in diameter. Dish antennas may be either ground mounted, requiring a concrete base, or roof mounted. Roof mounted dish antennas may be screened from view from the ground. Screening of ground mounted antennas is possible only to the extent that screening does not interfere with reception. Staff feels that the question for consideration by the Planning Commission is whether or not to make satellite dish antennas a conditional use. Treatment as a conditional use would allow the Planning Commission to address screening and location for minimal negative visual impact on a case by case basis. It would be difficult to write screening requirements to cover all cases without indivi- dual review due to the fact that screening may interfere with dish antenna usage. In an individual case, it may be necessary to compromise to achieve the best screening possible without interfering with reception. This type of subjective determination is appropriate to the conditional use classification. Planning staff suggests the following provisions for consideration: 1. Dish antennas under one meter in diameter shall be a permitted use in all zoning districts (Residential , Multiple Dwelling, Business and Professional Offices, Commercial , Light Industrial , Industrial and Institutional ). � 2. Dish antennas over one meter in diameter shall be a conditional use in all zoning districts. a. Dish antennas shall be subject to the setback and height restrictions of each individual zoning district. In the Residential Zoning District, ! a satellite dish antenna would be regulated as an accessory structure, which must be to the rear of the house, must have at least ten feet of : F Golden Valley PTanning Commission March 23, 1988 Page 2 � separation from the house, and must be a minimum of five feet from property lines. In other zoning districts an accessory structure is subject to the same setback requirements as any other building or structure. _ b. Dish antennas shall not be allowed in front yards. Dish antennas shall be allowed only in side and rear yards. This provision is already taken care of in the Residential Zoning District provisions for accessory structures but is necessary in other districts. c. Roof mounted dish antennas shall be screened from view from the ground. d. Ground mounted dish antennas shall be screened from adjacent properties to the greatest extent possible without interfering with dish reception. � � r � Ap1^i 1 7 i 1988 , T0: Mark Grimes, Director, Planning and Development FROM: Lloyd G. Becker, Director, Zoning, Community Services & RE: DISH ANTENNAS The Planning Cort�nission has scheduled for discussion purposes dish � antennas. � The Board of Zoning Appeals recently heard a petition from KARE Channel #11, for an additional dish antenna because of certain satellite reception needs. The Board approved the variance after carefully considering all alternatives. Commissioner McAleese expressed his concern for other such applications. � Please be advised that this department has carefully reviewed all information past and present based on such reviews by APA, FCG and others. Dish antennas have been treated as structures which in all zoning districts of the City must meet the setback requirements. In addition, where placed upon a structure, co�nercial or residential , a structural engineer has been required to submit the appropriate design criteria for loading, wind and ice. Only two items have ever required attention by the Board of Zoning Appeals. One residential ham radio antenna on Kentucky Avenue near Jersey Avenue So. (exceeded height limit by 3 feet) and the other at KARE Channel #11 , which encroached on the 50 foot side setback from adjacent residential . We have had no problems to date relating to application of the current Zoning Code or Building Code. I -raise the question of encumbrance and enforcement through a Conditional Use Permit. LGB:gj cc: William Joynes, City Manager � Lowe11 Odland, Director, Public Works Alda W.ilkinson, Planner