The URL can be used to link to this page

09-10-84 PC Agenda GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) • September 10, 1984 . 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1984 II. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Robert Renneke LOCATION: 900 Florida Avenue South REQUEST: Approval of Used Automobile Sales in the Industrial Zoning District III. AMENDMENTS TO THE GOLDEN VALLEY ZONING ORDINANCE � A. HELIPORT � B. MANUFACTURED HOUSING C. CONDITIONAL USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT IV. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING = SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 � ;' s MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION August 27, 1984 � A regular meeting of the Planning Conmission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Yalley Road, Golden Ya11ey, N�I. Vice Chairman Prazak as Acting Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Comnissioners Leppik, McAleese, McCracken-Hunt, Prazak and Singer. Can�nissioner Russell was not present at the beginning of the meeting. Chairman Forster was absent. Also present were Alda Peikert, Planner, and Towhid Kazi, Planning Intern. � I. APPROYAL OF MINUTES _ AUGUST 13, 1984 It was moved by Conrtni ssi oner Si nger, seconded by Cor�ni ssi oner McAI eese and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 13, 1984 Planning Comnission meeting as recorded. II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT APPLICANT: Tires Plus, Ltd. LOCATION: 5760 Wayzata Boulevard REQUEST: Amendment of Conditional Use Permit No. 84-15 for a Tire Store in a Cort�nercial Zoning District to allow addition . • of a Van Conversion Operation in the same building Acting Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item and asked Planner Alda Peikert for additional comments. Ms. Peikert reviewed the staff report. Acting Chairman Prazak asked the proponent, Tires Plus, Ltd. , 5760 Wayzata Boulevard, to explain the proposed amendment. Mr. Tom Gegax of 7ires Plus Ltd. explained that due to the increased cost of upgrading the building, Tires Plus, Ltd. intends to lease the back portion of the building for a van conversion operation to defray some of the cost of capital improvements in the building. Cortunissioner Leppik asked Mr. Gegax about the work involved in a van conversion. Mr. Gegax explained that most of the work is such items as upholstery, carpeting, wood trim, etc. Yery little work is done with the exterior, possibly attachment of a running board. Acting Chairman Prazak asked whether there is any work done such as cutting out sections for windows. Mr. Gegax stated that van conversion work done at this operation does not involve glazing. Conenissioner Russell asked if there would be any exterior painting involved in this van conversion operation. Mr. Gegax stated that the conversion operation does not include any painting. Acting Chairman Prazak asked if there were any additional building requirements necessary for the use of the building by the Metropolitan Van Conversion operation. Mr. Gegax stated that no additional building modi�ications are necessary for such an operation. � � Planning Commission Minutes - August 27, 1984 -2- . Com�nissioner Leppik expressed concern about the parking space if the vans are ' parked outside in the parking lot. Mr. Gegax stated that the van conversion work derives primarily from dealersips and the work is done inside the building. The customized vans are very costly and uninsured and as such stored inside the building to avoid vandalism. Conmissioner Leppik expressed her concern about the storage of used tires out- side in the parking lot at the back of the building since no outside storage is one of the conditions for the Conditional Use Permit issued to Tires Plus, Ltd. Mr. Gegax was reminded to remove the tires from the parking lot in order to fu1fi11 the condition of the original Conditional Use Permit, issued to Tires Plus, Ltd. Acting Chairman Prazak then opened the informal public hearing for public input. Mr. Robert Kairies, Manager of Breck Ice Center, was the only person present and stated that he sees no problem with the proposal . Since no one else was present who wished to speak on this item, Acting Chairman Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Acting Chairman Prazak asked staff to clarify Condition #15. Ms. Peikert stated that some of the conditions of the original approval of the Conditional Use Permit have been met but should remain in the Conditional Use Permit Amendment so that the site plan continues to match the original plan. Ms. Peikert then informed the Commissioners that Condition #15 should be numbered as Condition • #12. . With no further discussion, it was moved by Co�nissioner Leppik and seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment for addition of a van conversion operation to Tires Plus Ltd. at 5760 Wayzata Boulevard subject to the following conditions as outlined in the staff report, i.e. the original Conditional Use Permit conditions as well as the addition of a condition that there be "no outside storage of vans serviced by the van conversion operation": 1 . Construction of site improvements in conformance with the Site/Plot Plan dated January 3, 1984 prepared by Bruce Knutson Architects, Inc. , including striping of parking 1ots. 2. Conformance of builidng space use with the floor plan dated January 3, 1984 prepared by Bruce Knutson Architects, Inc. 3. Separation of bituminous surfaced parking area and drive from landscaped area with concrete curb. 4. Conformance of signage with the City Sign Regulations and approval of the City Building Inspector. � Planning Commission Minutes - August 27, 1984 -3- • 5. Sprinklering of the entire building. 6. Conformance with all reconmendations of the City Fire Marshal . 7. No semi-trailer trucks or detached semi-trailers on the site either tem- porarily or permanently either for purposes of delivery or for purposes of storage of ti res. 8. Inside storage of used and unusable tires. 9. No outside storage of products, materials or refuse. 10. Conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code, including handicapped accessibility requirements. 11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. 12. No outside storage of vans serviced by the van conversion operation. ' The Planning Co�nission voted unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Tires Plus, Ltd. • III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Tactronics, Inc. LOCATION: 2525 Nevada Avenue North REQUEST: Approval of an Automotive Electronics Sales, Installation and Service Operation in an Industrial Zoning District Acting Chairman Prazak introduced this item and asked Planner A1da Peikert to add any further comments. Ms. Peikert reviewed the staff report. Acting Chairman Prazak asked the proponent, Mr. John Schneider, Tactronics, Inc. to explain the proposed operation. Mr. 5chneider explained the different � aspects of Tactronics, Inc. Act9ng Chairman Prazak then opened the informal public hearing for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item and as such, Acting Chairman Prazak closed the informal publ9c hearing. With no further discussion, it was moved by Comnissioner Russell and seconded by Comnissioner McCracken-Hunt to recon�nend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Tactronics, Inc. sub3ect to the following conditions as outlined in the staff report : � Planning Cortmission Minutes - August 27, 1984 _4_ . 1 . Documentation of Valley Business Center candominium awners association approval of the proposed use. 2. Availability of home entertainment and telephone equipment servicing to dealers and manufacturers only and not to the general public. 3. No outside storage of materials or refuse. 4. Conformance with all requirements and reconmendations of the City Building Inspector and Fire Marshal . 5. Conformance of signage with the City Sign Regulations and approval of the City Building Inspector. 6. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Cor�mission voted unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Tactronics, Inc. for operation of an automotive electronics sales, installa- tion and service operation at 2525 Nevada Avenue North #104. IV. REPORT ON HRA MEETING = AUGUST 14, 1984 Comnissioner McAleese provided the Planning Conmiission with a report of the August 14, 1984 meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). � V. REPORT ON BZA MEETING _ AUGUST 14, 1984 Acting Chairman Prazak provided the Planning Commission with a report of the August 14, 1984 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). VI. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING _ AUGUST 21, 1984 Com�nissioner McAleese provided the Planning Commission with a report on the August 21 , 1984 City Council meeting. City Council voted to recommend that the Planning CoRenission invite Ms. Eileen Moran, Executive Director, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, to speak on Residential Facilities for the Chronically Mentally I11 at a future meeting. The Planning Commission asked staff to contact Ms. Moran and schedule such a meeting with the members of the P1 anni ng Conuni ssi on. The meeting was ad3ourned at 8:00 P.M. Respecfully submitted, ary razak, Acting Chairman argaret eppik, Secretary � � T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, PLANNER SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 900 FLORIDA AVENUE SOUTH IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT The proponent, Mr. Robert Renneke, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for automobile sales at 900 Florida Avenue South in an Industrial Zoning District. Automobile sales, either indoor or outdoor, require a Conditional Use Permit in the Industrial Zoning District. Mr. Renneke describes his proposed operation, International Imports, as the purchase and ret�ail sale of quality late model and specialty automobiles to con- sumers. The proposed site is the location of Coloray Car Painting and Body Works. Mr. Renneke proposes to sublease office space and outside display area from Coloray. Under current Zoning Ordinance provisions, Coloray would require a Conditional Use Permit as an automobile body repair and painting operation in an Industrial Zoning District. Coloray was in place prior to the current Ordinance require- ment and does not have a Conditional Use Permit. � Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an informal public hearing date of September 24, 1984 for consideration of the Conditional Use Permit requested by Mr. Robert Renneke for automobile sales at 900 Florida Avenue South. Attachment: Site Location Map � 1 ' . ��..,- . . � • _ _ _ ' '_ -. � � r _ � I �� '40 1 .f . -�48�°, �.( S �'...... � � N93�1. Oot.rW.+.u6t2a� 57Ff. Dl � rf;,,d s-z,.s'� $� VE. � � -- Z s ggy�•�5 E �� 80 d�I'�o'�5'E ` � � - �- �o � �-�- � i � _ � � � ��, � � � �o � • � _ � f� � . F'M ► -. -, � � � � � . ��._ A ' • "' � � * ,A, ,�. ; � o ► � ; � � � � � �t � ., ..� � ,°��. ' '^ M ,,'�� w ! ' , ,� °� . � PART 0 � �� • REGISTERE LAND ti� � (pfTS) t a , 2 � �NO. 648 � � + o I 5�'f'ao":SE: _ _ 574.26- - - - - - ' �O w E --- • . - - - — - - O � ' ' N . � j ' � • iw • : � . ° a � Se�ao�SE, � ' : ,.a..� .��; ° � ��.i� 7. �;' .r.+er. £e.� ^ — �9z3a ioo.o5 . �.,r..:.. �� 2 °4 s LI2.3 -� ` �� a � 3 °• � �,tiit"�� ` \� �p. -- zs � o � d � .� Uj �� ;` ; � ��oa� N�cs � N 2 • ° ' a .o . AO�;� ,�P�a N�, 3 �r � � � 6660 h �°� '�/ y, ' e `5 8�45�� " 6700-6830 4'z�53�2�" 66e�t7 J •o 00 �'°� "� �v �O� i. �' 9 6d ' B. I d�127q¢ �0: 8�' �• ^ Q\ 595.14 ' �$ dgs��7"09" ' �� 2~r �i` •� � �O o 2 N 230.Z R dl9s 1z � o-• �� ,(+et� �� y w ---------------- Chd:��.01 N��'IO,S'h/._ _ . • ' , 'i��3o '-6'� � t y - -: � !f - _ _—_ --- - - ------ � `�J _----�_- - - • �F7�"�,�Mr��f.0�'� ~�fa� .n�v� e'*sp � �. 0•��4G' i • - ��JS)' � N° �f0.7J 6t00 �` ��;0 � �S• ISo.a 1 ��9� ' � ai.� 7s Ta� 740.55 ' Lc � nGi•1� ' ; , '" �J.n es� �,Q�,�; � ' .. I -�•' .. � 1 f ! '��; � 1 � �'c�f... � � :ij ....,�1; 5 .JEST... _� ' '�-�, �Y � . .19l8 7 • � _ ` � RK -.-- 2G27.41 Res--� i + f?�' t i �''��'i� �•ase.9 � , � T�� t•y�o.of 4� °� _ a.�"�h.yr�'v'< , . t'�s�3 - ' x-: _ . . . .. _ ��';�'�#.��'� _ ;. : - _ . �. �� LYER �.� � : £r� �. . - ��w � �� -� /�}y, �/ �� ,, : a v -{ 'isV�.��T i �� t - ��.�. . H�NEP�N ;� � _ . � _ - - -. - . - {{,��..-� t�� . - -�_ � - _ - ° ' __ ,�, - _ . � � ��-� �� 6 _ _ - . .. .. _ . . " . , _ F ° _ '_ ' . .. - - . - ' ... ' . ' ' �.r:... ' ��;i ' .- . _ . �..m.ct,a�'+a+m�"�_ � _ �.J-. _" _' , - '.. . ...._"'_�_' _, _. .._ 'e :.?, �P jA�` September 4, 1984 • T0: � Planning Commission Members FROM: Towhid Kazi , Planning Intern RE: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Provide For a Heliport in Golden Valley In response to the inquiry from WTCN regarding amendment of the Zoniny Ordinance providiny for heliports in the City of Golden Valley, the followiny information needs attention: A. F.A.A. Recommendations 1. Location a. To permit heliports as an accepted land use in areas iden- tified for 'industrial , commercial , manufacturing or ayri- cultural and any area that is unzoned. Heliports without support facilities could be permitted in residential zoned areas. � b. Clear approach/departure path is an important consideration in selecting a heliport site. In order to protect heli- port approach and departure paths the ordinance could limit height of objects around the heliport. (Refer to F.A.A. Advisory Circular 150/5190-4 available upon request at the Planning Department.) 2. Environmental and Other Considerations The establishment of a heliport may have an impact on the com- munity in terms of noise, exhaust emissions, public safety, yround traffic, aesthetics, etc. (For details, see F.A.A. Advisory Circular 150/5390-16 enclosed.) B. Zoniny Codes in Other Communities Most of the suburban communities do not make provision for heliports except in Bloomington, St. Louis Park and Plymouth. However, there a�e eleven airports �n th_e Metropolitan area which may be used as heliports. In the following chart you will find the uses and zoniny districts where heliports are allowed. • Memo to Planning Commission Members September 4, 1984 Paye 2 • Communit District Permitted Cond�tiona Bloomington I-1, I-2, I-3 X Mixed Use, Freeway Development X Commercial , Recreation X Central Business District X St. Louis Park General Business District X Plymouth Office-Limited Business X District Crystal R-1, Residential (accessory us X C. Proposed Amendments Considering the above information, Planniny staff recommends the follow- iny amendments: Sec. 5.03 Commercial Zoning District - Conditional Use Amended to include Heliport as #7 and #7 becomes #8, etc. For definition, see Sec. 12.02. • Sec. 6.U4 Liyht Industrial Zoniny District - Conditional Use � Amended to add Heliport as #12. For definition, see Sec. 12.02. Sec. 7.03 Industrial Zoning District - Conditional Use Amended to add Heliport as item #15. For definition, see Sec. 12.02. Sec. 10.091 Business and Professional Offices Zoning District - Conditional Use � Amended to add Heliport as item F and item "F" is ,amended to become, item G. For definition, see Sec. 12.02�. Sec. 11.03 Institutional Zoniny District - Conditional Use Amended to add Heliport as item #�. For definition, see Sec. 12.02 Sec. 12.02 Amended to include a definition of Heliport. (After , Greenhouse and before Hospital .) Heliport: Any land and/or structure used or intended for use for the la�ding and take off of helicopters and any appurtenant land and/or structure used or intended for use for port buildings or other port structures or rights-of-way, which land and/or structures meet the requirements and conditions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and Minnesota Department of Transportation. � Memo to Planning Commission Members September 4, 1984 Paye 3 � Staff recommends that the following items be looked at when issuing a Condi- tional Use Permit for heliports: 1 . Submit documentation of Liability insurance policy secured by the applicant for the heliport. 2. Provide safety barrier around helicopter operational areas. The barrier may take the form of a fence, wall , or a hedye. Any barrier used should be high enouyh to present a positive deterrant . to persons inadvertently entering an operational area and yet be low enough to be nonhazardous to helicopter operations. See Minnesota Code of Ayency Rules (14MCAR) 1.3001 - 1.3029 available upon request at the Planning Department. 3. Fire protection, dependent upon size and number of helicopters to be accommodated; the number of occupants; and the fuel load of the helicopter. (For details see F.A.A. Advisory Circular AC 150/5390-1B pp 44-e.) 4. Height restrictions: Minimum altitude of 3U0 feet be maantained above ground at the heliport site except for take off and landiny. 5. Landing, take off and parking or operation hours. 6. Heliport having maintenance facilities or fuel storaye at tne heli- • port site. 7 . Limitations on number of users and on number of helicopters stored at the heliport site. • � 8/22/77 AC 150/5390-LB ib. Land-Uee Zoaiag. Zoaing ordinancee ehould be written to permit heliporte as an accepted land usa in areae identified for iadus- � trial, commercial, manufacturiag, or agricultural uses and in aay � area that ie uazoned. Some heliporte, eepecially those without ➢ support facilities, could be a permitted use ia certain reeideatially � zoned areas. Laaguage that permite occaeional or infrequent " 4 helicopter laudiage at a aite that is aot a formally deaignated heliport ehould be e.acouraged. c. Height Restriction Zoniag. The deeire for clear approach-departure paths ie an important coneideration in eelectiag a heliport aite. tidhen state-enabliag legielation permite, communities are encouraged to protect heliport approach aad departure pathe by enacting height reetrictioa zoniag. Advieory Circular 150/5190-4, A Model Zoaiag Ordinance to Limit Height of Objecte Around Airporte, contaias geaeral guidaace for preparing aa ordinance restricting the height of objecte arouad a heliport. Y 47. ENVIROIaiF�TTAL AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. The eatabliehment of a g heliport maq have an impact on the co�uaity ia terms of noiee, ' exhaust emiesions, public safetq, grouad traffic, aesthetica, and attitude. Whea Federal aid ie uaed, an environmentel impact aesesement report is required to assist the Federal agency ia makiag the eaviron- � meatal decision. A similar report may be required by etate or local authorities. . a. Noiae. The impact of helicopter engiae and rotor souads upon � populated areae ie an important coneideratioa ia selectiag a heliport eite. Siace helicopter souads are greatest directlq ' beaeath the takeoff aad laading pathe, theae pathe should be located over sparsely populated areae; over areas that have an already high level of background eouade; or over areas that would be expected to have a high tolerance level to helicopter souada. � Improvemente reaultiag from oagoing research activitiea to reduce the sounde generated by eagiaee aad rotors will be incorporated ia future helicopters as quickly ae economic and techaological conditiona permit. ° b. Exhauet Emiseiona. Relatively few civil-use heliporta have aufficient flight operatioas for exhauet emissione to be conaidered a aigaificaat problem. Reaearch oa aircraft fuele and engines to reduce pollutaat levele will aleo be applicable to helicoptera. c. Public Safety. Heliport sites aad approach-depazture paths should be selected to avoid areae of public concentration. The approach- departure pathe ehould also be free, and capable of beiag maintained s free, of objecte that interfere with helicopter movemeat to aad from ' the heliport. � � Chap 4 � Par 46 Page 33 � f AC 150/5390-1B g�22�77 • � d. Ground Traffic. Potential problems with passenger ground ingress or egress to a heliport may be minimized if there is direct access to an ad�acent major roadway. Access to one or more modes of public mass transit is desirable. A heliport in a freeway environment has some inherent advantages over other sites. First, helicopter sounds may b� undetectable over the existing background noises. Second, approach-departure paths can frequently follow the freeway right-of-way which is generally unencumbered with ob�ects that would be hazardous to flight safety. e. Aesthetics. Community acceptance of ground-level heliports can be enhanced if the facility has an attractive appearance. Attractive buildings and carefully planned walls, fences, hedges, etc. , are to be encouraged. f. Attitude. Community acceptance or rejection of a heligort site proposal is difficult to predict. An opportunity for a public hearing to obtain citizen input is required for Federal aid projects. A well prepared presentation to citizen groups on the positive and negative aspects of the proposed heliport together with patience, honesty, and an attitude of willing cooperation in responding to questions will help to influence public opinion. • 48. PROJECT ACTIVITIES. Heliport proponents may find a checklist helpful in pursuing their objective. Any checklist must be developed to meet � local conditions which will vary from one location to another. The following items are representative of the activities that are carried out in any heliport development and may be added to or subtracted from as the situation warrants. a. Review Regulations. Review local regulations of the city and county concerning land usage, building codes, aircraft operations, noise limits, fire protection, etc. , for possible impact. b. Select Sites. Se�ect potential sites which would not be subject to zoning restrictions, will provide ample room for current and future needs, and will have clear approaches. c. Seek Advice. Contact appropriate Federal and state aviation offices, local helicopter operators, aviation consultants, or helicopter manufacturers as to the operational feasibility of the sites being considered, including approach-departure paths and operating procedures. • ' Chap 4 Page 34 Par 47 "' � WTCN � 441 BOONE AVENUE NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 (612) 546-1111 . � � G�[�' fl n � C� �I � . I�_..� �May 18, 1984 MAY �t 19� ; � Mr. Lloyd G. Becker CITY OF O��Fi� t�a� � ��, : Di rector, Zoni ng & I nspecti ons By —e;��,':? o City of Golden Valley —— Civic Center 7840 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Dear Lloyd: Thank you for taking the time last week to explain the cities concerns regarding the use of WTCN's helicopter. As you know, we have been using leased helicopter's at the station for the last several years. However, the activity has picked up considerably over the last several weeks, partially, because we have purchased our own machine, and to a major extent, because we are in the process of installing and testing electronic gear on the ship. You have informed us that a heliport is neither a permitted nor . a conditional use for property, such as ours, which is in a professional and business office zo�ing district. Since we would like to continue using our helicopter, we write to request the City to amend the zoning ordinance to provide for a heliport in a professional and business office zoning district. Joe Franzgrote and I will both be out of town most of next week. However, I 'll look forward to discussing the matter with you the week of the 28th. Sincerely, �' l %/ Richard A. Modi,g' • Vice President, Business Manager RM/av cc: Joe Franzgrote � � �� ' GAMIEII' �+w�u a o.wn«�wn� +w�a wamr wus ��`�4 s��,�e City o� Q�s� �8 , � . �Y�� TI� � m � = DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS � � � o MEMO Inspection T0: GOLDEN YALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 FROM: TOWHID KAZI, PLANNING INTERN SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT After carefully studying the staff report on manufactured homes prepared by Alda Peikert on February 9, 1983 and other zoning ordinances of neighboring com- munities, the following suggestions are made: SECTION 1 . Section 12:02 of the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance is amended to include Manufactured Homes as follows: MANUFACTURED HOME: A structure, transportable in • one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or,when erected on site, is 320 or ►nore square feet, and is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit with a permanent foundation in conformance with Chapter 29 of the State Uniform Building Code, when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems con- tained therein, and which has a roof design in conformance with Section 3203 (d) . of the State Uniform Building Code; except that the term includes any structure which complies with the State Manufactured Home Building Code set forth in , Minnesota Statutes 327.31 to 327.35, which complies with the "Rules for Manufactured Homes" set forth in 2MCAR 1 .90100 through 1 .90900, and which meets the standards of and is certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. SECTION 2. Section 12.02 is amended to delete in its entirety: Mobil Home. SECTION 3. Section 3A.10 is amended to be 3A.11 . Section 3A.10 as amended reads as follows: Building Width Reguirements. No principle building shall be less than 22 feet in width un ess a on �tiona'I—Dse�ermit is issued in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20 of this Ordinance. � ,-. Civic Center,7800 Golden Valley Rd.,Golden Valley Minnesota,55427, (612) 545-3781 ��.,, PAGE TWO � SECTION 4 Section 3A.06 Item 1 is amended to read as follows: Front Setback: The required front setback shall be 35 feet from the front property inl e a�n -3� feet from any side or rear property line which is also a street or road right-of-way line, but this requirement shall not reduce the building width of any corner lot to less than 22 feet at the ground story level. SECTION 5. Section 3A.11 is amended to be numbered as Section 3A.12. TK:kjm � ' . � • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1983 FROM: ALDA PIEKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO ACCOMPIODATE NEW LEGISLATION ON MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOMES The State Legislature in 1982 passed legislation prohibiting the use of Zoning to exclude manufactured/mobile homes. The City of Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance does not make provision for, and therefore does not allow, mobile homes as defined in the Definitions Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance does not differentiate other types -of manufactured housing from conventionally built houses, and factory built modular homes have been erected in Golden Valley and could be installed under the existing Zonina Ordinance provided all require- ments of the State Uniform Building Code (UBC) are met. The new State law, which became effective August 1 , 1982, adds language to the Zoning enabling legislation stating that Zoning regulations may not prohibit manufactured homes built in conformance with the Manufactured Homes Building Code, originally established by 1g80 legislation as the Mobile Homes Building Code. The Manufactured Homes Building Code, Minnesota Statute 327•31 through 327•35, defines a manufactured home as "a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet • or more in length or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation . . . ." This means that City and County Zoning Ordinances may not exclude, or in other words must make provision for, manufactured/ mobile homes which meet this definition of manufactured housing. At the same time, the list of items which may be regulated by Zoning is expanded to include '�idth" and "type of foundation", along with height, size, lot coverage, density and use as previously provided for in Zoning enabling legislation. A copy of the first section of the City Zoning enabling legislation with the amendment underlined is attached. The likelihood of receiving a proposal for installation of a mobile home in Golden Valley is reduced by lack of available land and by the relatively high cost of residential lots in Golden Valley. However, the use of manufactured/rr�bile homes on small individual lots of record is a possibility. The City Zoning Ordinance requires amendment in compliance with the law to make provision for manufactured housing which conforms to the Manufactured Homes Building Code, and it would be in the best interests of the City at the same time to provide for regulation of manufactured housing to ensure compatibility with established Golden Valley residential neighborhoods. Guidelines for dealing with the new legislation published by both the League of ' Minnesota Cities and by Metropolitan Council suggest that cities may, without violating the law, establish any of the following: • Golden Valley Planning Commission -2- February 9� 1983 � 1 . Design standards for dwellings in residential districts specifying minimun width, minimum square footage, siding materials, roof lines and foundation requirements. 2. Residential districts in which only dwellings meeting the State Uniform Building Code (UBC) are permitted. • 3. Mixed residential districts in which both homes conforming to the UBC and homes in compliance with the Manufactured Homes Buildi.ng Code are permitted. 4. Manufactured home park districts in which only manufactured homes meeting the Nanufactured Homes Building Code are permitted. The City is required to make provision in the Zoning Ordinance for manufactured housing which complies with the Manufactured Homes Building Code but apparently has two options for regulating use of manufactured/mobile homes: l . Relegation of manufactured/mobile homes to specific residential districts. 2. Limitation by means of zoning requirements such as minimum size, width, exterior materials or roof pitch. Design standards of this type must be applied uniformly to all dwelling units within a ioning district including conventionally built homes as well as manufactured/mobile homes. � The limitation of manufactured/mobile homes to specific residential zoning districts is not a workable option in Golden Valley. There is only one zoning district for single family homes, the Residential Zoning District, and creation of a new residen- tial zoning category for manufactured/mobile homes in not feasible. There is no available vacant land for a manufactured/mobile home district, and selection of , existing Golden Valley neighborhoods as more suitable than others for the inclusion of mobile home devetopment is not practicable. The only viable alternative is to adopt design standards which would limit the type of manufactured/rAObile homes allowable in the current Residential Zoning District. Residential Zoning District design standards which may be adopted as deterrents to incompatible manufactured/mobile home development include the following: 1 . Minimum Dwelling Unit Size The City of Golden Valley in 1981 eliminated from the City Code all minimum square footage requirements for residential dwelling units. Elimination of minimum square footage requirements in noted in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan Housing element as facilitating new construction of affordable housing. Elimination of residential dwelling unit minimum square footage requirements improves Golden Valley's rating under Metropolitan Councit 's Policy 3g housing evaluation for housing subsidy funds. Staff feels that reinstitution of minimum square footage requirements is not necessary in order to adequately regulate manufactured/mobile home development in Golden . Valley Residential Zoning District and advises against use of this tool . Golden Valley Planning Commission -3- February 9, 1983 • 2. Minimum Width The amendment in the zoning enabling legislation allows addition of minimum dwelling unit width as a design standard applicable to all dwelling units within a residential zoning category. Review of ordinance amendments passed by other Metropolitan Area communities reveals that a width of 22 feet is used as a standard in residential neighborhoods as opposed to rr�bile home parks. One example requires a minimum width of 22 feet at the narrowest point, and another requires a minimum width of 22 feet for a minimum of 70 percent of the length of the dwelling unit. A Metropolitan Council publication suggests the use of a 20 foot minimum width requirement to allow onty double wide man- ufactured homes. Staff suggests that a minimum dwelling width of 22 feet would be reasonable for all new construction in the Residentiai Zoninq District ' and that it would serve to promote manufactured/mobile home installation com- patible with conventional single family residential neighborhoods. It is suggested that the Planning Commission consider provision for homes narrower than 22 feet as a conditional use. This would atlow for a width less than 22 feet, whether manufactured or conventionally built, in the case of unusual lot configuration, but would provide for a determination of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The conditional use provision would eliminate the possibility of court challenge based on lack of provision in any part of the City for single wide mobile homes. . 3. Garage Requirement Section 3A.)0 Paragraph 3 of the Residential Zoning District Section of the City Zoning Ordinance requires demonstrated space for a garage prior to issuance of a building permit for a single family dwelling. It has been suggested that a garage requirement would increase the investment required in a single family dwelling and there�ore, discourage installation of less expensive manufactured/ • mobile homes. Lack of a garage requirement, the same as lack of square footage requirements, is a factor noted by Metropolitan Council as promoting affordable housing. Staff nevertheless suggests consideration of adding a garage require- ment in the Residential Zoning District. The Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance already includes garage requirements for the Two Family (R-2) Residential and Multiple Dwelling Zoning Districts. 4. Permanent Foundation The second item added to zonin� enabling legislation is type of foundation. The MaRUfactured Homes Building Code provides for temporary tie down of mobile homes rather than installation on permanent foundations. Other communities have distinguished between installation on permanent foundations in conformance with the State Uniform Buildinq Code (UBC) in residential districts and use of temporary tie down systems in conformance with the Manufactured Homes Building Code in manufactured/mobile home park districts. Staff suggests addition of a requirement for permanent foundations in conformance with Chapter 29 of the UBC, which requires masonry frost footings to a depth of 42 inches • and foundation extending 6 inches above grade. Golden Valley Planning Commission -4- February 9, 1983 • 5• Roof Design in order to achieve roof lines compatible with conventionally built housing, o-ther communities have adopted design standards requiring a minimum roof pitch of 3/12. A Metropolitan Council publication cautions that roof pitch on most manufactured homes is slightly under 3/12 to allow transport under interstate highway b�idges and that the 3/12 requirement could be challenged as excluding all manufactured housing. Staff suggests instead a requirement that roof design conform to Section 3203 (d) of the Uniform Building Code which specifies roof design for areas susceptible to ice buildup. In conclusion, it is suggested that the Planning Commission request that staff prepare draft amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance providing for the following: 1 . A definition of manufactured/mobile homes which conforms to the new zoning enabling legislation. Z. Manufactured housing in conformance with the Manufactured Homes Building Code as permitted and conditional uses in the Residential Zoning District. 3. Residential Zoning District design standards requiring minimum dwelling unit width, garages, permanent foundations and roof design in conformance with the UBC. • AP:kjm Attachments: l . HN Statutes Section 462.357 Subdivision 1 . , � . � . 4. f � Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1980. Section 462.357, Subdivision 1, is amended to • read: Subdivision 1. (AUTHORITY FOR ZONING.) For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. a municipality may by ordinance regulate the location, height. width, bulk, �pe of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage o ot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, lndustry, residence. recreation, public activlties. or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry. residence, recreation. agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in section 105.485, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in section 116H.02, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section 116H.02, subdivision 3, or manufactured homes bu11t in �conformance with sections 327.31 to 327035 that eer�� es .c� _o. m� � w a o er zon ng or inances promu ga e pursuant to this section. The regul t ons may divide the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape and area. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures or land and for each class or kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its zon�ng regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipali- �ties have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zaning of land on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous muni- c�palities unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property were situated within its corporate limits. unt91 the county or town board adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area. /rmm �/15/82 � September 4, 1984 T0: Members of the Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Towhid Kazi , Planning Intern RE: Proposed Amendments to the Industrial Zoning Ordinance In response to the inquiry from Mr. Aron Yngve regarding provision for a cor�nercial laundry in the Industrial Zoning District, staff recom- mends this amendment. (Please see attached.) Currently, the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance allows laundries as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial District but does not make provision for laundries in the Industrial Zoning District. The proposed amendments have been sent to the City Attorney for revie�. • , . Attachments: 1. August 17, 1984 Letter from Aron Yngve 2. Proposed Amendments to the Industrial Zoning District Section of the Zoning Ordinance � INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT SECTION 7.03. is amended to delete Item 10 which reads "Ball Fields, and Other Recreational Faciities", in its entirety and also delete in its entirety Item 12, which reads "Day-Care Facilities provided that said facilities serve only dependents of persons employed on the same premises � for uses as are otherwise permitted by this Chapter". SECTION 7.03. is amended to add as Item 1 : "All Conditional Uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District". SECTION 7.03. is amended to change the order of items as follows: 1 . All conditional uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District; 2. Car wash; 3. Structures and premises for automobile, or other motor vehicle sales and showrooms, with incidental accessory ser- vice and repair facilities; 4. Gasoline service stations; 5. Bulk storage of gas, fuel oil , chemicals, and other liquid or solid materials which may be considered hazardous or toxic; • 6. Mortuaries; 7. Off-street parking lots for adjacent Commercial or Industrial uses; 8. Outdoor sales incuding motor vehicle and equipment rental . 9. Drive-in retail establishments, such as banks, cleaners, photo shops, restaurants (Class II), and similar uses; 10. Unattended business operations, such as vending machines, coin or token operated machines and equipment; 11. Temporary structures such as tents or air-supported structures; 12. Railroad yards, railroad tracks and rights-of-way in such yards, railroad shops, round houses, and any other use which shall be for railroads; 13. Automobile repair shops, auto body repair • and/or painting, and auto cleaning and reconditioning. ARON YNGVE 6100 Glenwood Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 • August 17, 1984 Ms. Alda Peikert, Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Ms, Peikert: I am considering establishing a commercial laundry in Golden Valley. As we discussed, presently Golden Valley allows conditional use of laundries in the light industrial zonea. No provision is made for laundries in the industrial zones. Would you please make a provision allowing permitted use of laundries in the industrial zone. If there is anything I can do to assist you, please let me know. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your assistance. • Best regards, �l./`�'�- Aron Yng AY/joc •