The URL can be used to link to this page

06-12-17 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, June 12, 2017 7:30 pm 1. Approval of Minutes May 22, 2017, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion — Places of Assembly --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report • Election of Officers 5. Adjournment �r T�7i�dacu�ner��is availal�l� in �Iternat�f�rni�ts upon a 72-i��ur�rcqu�st. Pl�ase call �- £ 763-593-8006(TTV: �63-5�3-396�}ta �7��ke a re�uest. Exa��ies of alteri�ate focni�ts � �� tl��y ir1CJUCl�I�rg��rlilt,�I�Cfrfltll�, BraElf�,��d(C�C�5S�t�E,�te. � � Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 22, 2017. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Watdhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Community�� i�� ent Intern Kayla Grover. Commissioner Blenker was absent. �� ,�s� � � 1. Approval of Minutes ,� �.. "�� .�; �� r a � April 24, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning C��t�nis�� Waldhauser referred to the third paragraph of the s��d p�� ane��sk��.that her comment on some cities having successfiully k��i��! ou�r��t�rag��Mstruck, stating that it was not relevant to the discussion that��lowed�� Blum referred to the second-to-last par � h i��he sec�� page�and asked that his comment referencing a "neighbor's wi� �ow"�I�� r��ed to ��y "neighbor's lot line". �� i �, MOVED by Kluchka, seconded k��B�r ��ci�i�n c��d unanimously to approve the April 24, 2017 Regular meet�'�r�� mi i�s��h th��visions discussed. � � �� 2. Continued Inforr �n�i��u��c H�" �ng Z�ri�ing Code Text Amendment— Mobile Food Vendi�r� in F��sid � ial Zoning Districts � �� v ��.. �� x �;;,;; Applicant: City of`��rlt��n Va�l � �� Purpose: To ��isid��.allo�� m�ile food vending in Residential Zoning Districts � � �� s Goellner pr �� he� �opose�Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow mobile �. food vene�� i ��i�" l di��'icts with a permit, including the feedback from the pre�r�ous P��ing��omrri��on discussion that had been incorporated in the new recorn�endat��s �ellner stated that staff had received inquiries from residents who wanted ��host a ��adu�tion or wedding reception at their home and hire a food truck for the event. *�the r�i�ommendation of the Planning Commission, the Amendment had been updated i��iclude a ten foot distance required between food trucks and all structures for fire safety, to allow parking of food trucks on the street if service windows face the curb and it does not block traffic, to prohibit sales to the general public in residential areas except in cases where the street was closed for Special Events, to impose a six hour time limit on food truck sales, and to limit the permits issued for mobile food vending in residential districts to finro per applicant per year. Applicants would also be given educational materials and encouraged to inform their neighbors ahead of time about the event to limit complaints. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Goellner revisited the regulations presented at the previous meeting, stating that mobile food vending in residential districts must occur between eight a.m. and ten p.m., a permit is for one truck and one day and would not include a liquor license, trash removal is required, the food truck cannot park overnight, and it cannot create a parking shortage. Goellner said that the persons involved must follow the existing noise ordinance, although she noted that there have been no noise complaints about food trucks in the districts where they are currently permitted. Commissioner Baker expressed that he was concerned about the n �d to close streets for special events. He stated that people may wish to have a foo� �x ��an athletic event in a park which would vend to the general public and as�Cec� ` the str�ts would be required to be closed for that. Goellner clarified that the Park��epa��_ent h��les atl permits for mobile food vending in parks and that the tex�a��,.�� ndm�nt r��uest�n applies only to private events in residential districts, so th��le ��''of wh�e��`�r not to close the streets for an event in a park would be m�e by t��Par��Dep r�ent. Johnson asked about the possibility of there 1�� It��oa�trucic��"� the same street at the same time and wanted to know i��ere v��a li��"��how many mobile ��-�. food vending permits could be issued on ne s��et simul��neou��. Goellner replied that she did not anticipate that being � ��; �n��cause t��permit could be denied by staff if there was insufficient space. �� ` �� a Johnson brought up the forty do�r p��iit f�� w��g to know how that rate was -� �� ,� determined. Goellner replie��h�at r��ov :� the��mmis'�rative costs of processing the permit. Goellner stated th��`�or`��lol��-� � as the�te that had been set as an introductory rate, but that if��uld�� re d at a later time by City Council if it was � found to be too high.._ ,� . � ° .�� , � '�� Waldhauser asl�e� wh��er�h� ho owner or the vendor pays the permit fee. Goellner � said it would depe� on �� '�n;� �� ut typically the vendor would pay the fee. Baker �,� � ° �� -�;�; asked for cr�i�f��tior��n �� fills o��t the application. Goellner said it would typically be �� the vend�c but��9�me��wner has to sign, so both parties are part of the process. 3,� -Jy� C' _" Re�r�ing to�ag `�� h 17;�egelbaum said he was confused about the difference betwe��the te�,� "��icant", "property owner", and "vendor" since they did not seem to be us��;onsis�ntly. Goellner clarified that the application could be filed by either the property ow�" ��ie vendor, so "applicant"was used when referencing the permit application process but could refer to either the property owner or the vendor, whereas "property owner" and "vendor" refer to those persons specifically. Segelbaum asked staff to take another look at how those words are used. Referring to item four, page four Segelbaum raised concern about the language that seemed to restrict vendors to only having one permit at a time. He said that might prevent vendors from having events on consecutive days. Zimmerman said that staff would take another look at that section and think about why it was written that way. 2 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. John Levy, president of the Minnesota Food Truck Association, introduced himself and said that he was there both to offer feedback and to answer questions the Commission might have about the food truck industry. He stated that he did not think the ban on "sales to the general public" was necessary and recommended eliminating or expanding the six hour time limit on food truck sales. He explained that people may often plan an event where they want the food truck to serve both lunch and dinner and that a six hour time limit would prevent that. He said he was unaware of any instanc��s where food trucks being at a residence for long periods of time had caused � �� '�ms. � �� He also questioned why there was a limit of finro permits per}��r.�� state��at he thought there should be no limit on the number of trucks at�red on a�5t,�eet a��ine time since, in his experience, he said he has found that food tr�c��op��te b��w��n there is more than one food truck present. Levy brought up Johr►�n'��`;. �ncern a��t the permit price and said that he agreed it seemed too�i��to h��be� � �se t�� margins for a food truck serving just one meal are slim. �� `�� ' __�� . � � �;. Waldhauser asked what a typical price for a ��mit is, ii��,evy��erience, and Levy replied that he did not know. Waldhau��ntrt��ed that��vas likely the property owner who was hosting the party would pay � fe�, v��ch cas .�he cost would not affect the vendors. Kluchka mentioned that 1��pe�`��t� is ��;�� -� ble to the price of the permits food trucks must receiv��rom�� If '�� artment. �;� � � � �' Segelbaum wanted to kno�r��, ��.th+�r�� of a ��g event, a�food truck would ever need to hook up to the electrical��rsterfi�rt�Le��stated that food trucks typically run off a generator and woul��ot nee�!�o �g inf��n additional source of electricity. �. � � � �, Segelbaum ask�d Lev�i��i��thm��n the proposed text amendment stood out to him. Levy stated that thing'�'�too��# to��m, but that he was not familiar with the typical � �� language o�`��les �vy r'��nm�i�€led adding the option of a seasonal permit for vendor��.noti�€��i�m�y a��er cities provide that option. �, ..<u w� Sen no � �� g �� e��cor� x.=�_ ard, the public hearing was closed. �� Segel�m ask�i if t��e was a limit to the number of food trucks in non-residential areas Gv��ner s��i there was no formal limit, but that available space would be � analyzed b�� ,�� roval and that permits could be denied by staff if there was insufficient space. Waldhauser wanted to know why two food trucks at a residential event would be a problem, provided there was room on the street. She agreed with Mr. Levy that she thought more than one food truck would be more fun provided there were enough people and enough space. Zimmerman stated that the limit on number of food trucks applied to private events and that a special event could have more. 3 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Segelbaum asked where the recommendation for the limit on permits came from. Goellner confirmed that it was from the Planning Commission. Baker stated that the limit was imposed because there was concern that an unlimited amount of permits could encourage a party house situation. Kluchka proposed that if more trucks were desired, neighbors could collaborate with each other and that neighbors could apply for the permits for additional food trucks, which would not require a special event permit. Waldhauser agreed that a limit on permits was a good measure which would prevent frequent parties that might disturb neighbors. Mr. Levy stated that he thought this was a bad idea that could create logistical problems. He recommended ��1 allowing multiple food trucks and said that he has not heard of any probl��r�cre��by frequent food truck events. �n �� ` �� . Baker asked if staff had the ability to deny a permit if the a��' ant �pp�� too�, frequently. Goellner said that, without a formal limit, they �ul��deny � ��it if there had been complaints or prior violations of Cit� ode .��phn �'� �� recor„�m�nded not having a limit on number of trucks because the e�`�� an� woi�� ulate disturbances. �_ �� ' �' � � ��e �� R_ Segelbaum speculated that the limit on n�mb"��of food�t�cks rr�i�ht create long waits for food. Waldhauser pointed out that�r�� et��hyouse t��e situation, as was likely to happen in residential districts, she did r�� im ine �� bea�� a problem. -�'�F�� 4 ;� t�'s a fe-�'� .*�—""`��.t."is'", .,:, Baker recommended not being ��`erly��strr��e �tl�ss problems arise. Johnson agreed that the noise ordinance co�l� �Ivi�ay�s b�se cont�ol disturbances, and permits could always be denied if��t�re`v��re��plaints.��e said he would eliminate the limit entirety. �`�� _ Waldhauser said the�� f the��`�st's pro�� might self-impose a limit. Zimmerman noted that curre�t�lang�g��es ��actually specify that the food truck must be parked adjacent to �he h��'�S pr�:� e ��e�'��aum asked that the language be updated to require the`��uct��o p �� adjac�nt to the host's property. � , ;� _ � ,� Blum ask��for n�'��t�� a �� ut whether the limit was on number of trucks per event � �, r��, or rt�mber o�-�ven��per y��r. Zimmerman clarified that there were two limits, one permi��,�r truc�� r �erty and two permits permitted per year per property. He said that, whi��, i��had r��t been intended that way, the language could potentially allow hosts to have eitti��tv�r��vents per year with one truck or one event per year with two trucks. ��:.�,�. Kluchka asked what flexibility could be allowed for larger neighborhood events. Zimmerman pointed out that a special event permit could allow a larger event. Kluchka requested that a reference be added to special event permits in the text amendment to allow greater flexibility for neighborhood events. Segelbaum reviewed what had been discussed so far. He stated that they had agreed to clarify the definitions of"vendor" and "applicant", to correct item seventeen, and to 4 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 state that there is an exception to certain regulations for special event permits. Zimmerman added that they had also decided to restrict parking to the host's property. Baker raised the question of seasonal permits. Goellner clarified that seasonal permits were permitted in other zoning districts of the city, but were not permitted in residential zoning districts. Johnson brought up the six hour time limit. Blum asked why six hours had been selected, and Goellner answered that it had been suggested by the Planning Commission. Baker brought up the possibility of a two-meal even��ght take longer. Kluchka wondered if allowing an exception to the time lir��kcoul��►��ranted for a special event permit, and Zimmerman confirmed that was ��ca�� "` � '` �'�� Waldhauser recommended dropping the time limit altog�,h �.��ince,��,t w ��limit�� to between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. by the noise ordinance anyw��r. I�t��i`�ier, K��pointed out that neighbors might object to an all-day event hnsor��vant�� to kr�ow if there was a way to track how long the food trucks we��ar ��,G��ner��`��hat they � ��'� r �� .��. gather that information when the applicant ap�i�s per4�i� � .x � �� Blum brought up the penalty for violation� whi� is the s��pensit��from mobile food >' M`��'�k �.. 5¢*. . vending permits for thirty days. He st��t��sir�� many° .ivate events are likely to be °'�: x annual events, thirty days seemed like � �en��y wrt��p t= .�h. He recommended 13 months as a more appropriate ��poi�i�� out that thirteen months might be very significant to the v��or,��t t�.it s��ed appropriate for the property �� owner. He recommended��t�� g�e �y "no�exceeding thirteen months" to allow staff discretion in admmis�r�ng p��alf��, ��s� �� Segelbaum brought�`� e iss�� the fo��dollar permit fee. Goellner stated that any changes to that fee w , ��d��ie approved by the City Council and that forty dollars �� was the permit p�"� for�� obi �� oc�� nding in other districts and has not been a barrier �s $$��: � so far. Seg ��um � ge�� fo��ng the price for residential districts. Kluchka pointed out that ro�C`��xh��p,erri� for the food truck in residential districts is the same � br� �, amount o`�rork`�� pt�� the permit in other districts. � � John�i said ��t h ` ould�still like to lower the fee. Blum said that since it costs money to monit�r the ev��t fo��r`�ompliance and process the paper work, that lowering the fee �g would forc�he ta�ayers to subsidize someone else's party. A consensus was reached to leave the p��n��fee at forty dollars. Returning to the issue of the time limit, Segelbaum said he would be in favor of eight hours. A consensus was reached to increase the time limit to eight hours. Blum called attention to the required ten foot distance from homes recommended by the Fire Department. He stated that a tank of propane has the explosive power of several sticks of dynamite and questioned whether they were comfortable allowing the food trucks that close to the buildings. Waldhauser stated that if they were truly that explosive, they would be too dangerous to have anywhere. Baker asked if there was a 5 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 history of food truck explosions, and Blum cited several instances of injuries and property damage due to food truck explosions. Baker pointed out that food trucks on streets is a common practice in Minneapolis. Blum brought up the possibility of risk to the neighboring properties in case of a fire or an explosion and recommended a required distance from the neighboring property line in addition to the required distance from structures, and increasing the required distance to thirty feet from structures. Kluchka asked what the Fire Chief's recommendation was. Goellner replied that it was ten feet from all structures and that, whil�,�here was not a � � �� national standard as of yet, the Fire Chief expected ten feet to b �� national standard. Blum stated that he would still support increasing t r .�ired is�nce, but _ � � the other Commissioners did not support his recommendat�� . � � �� 1_ �¢�� Kluchka expressed that he would be supportive of a ten �t'�d�sta ` req�ire��nt from the neighbor's property line. Zimmerman and Goellner dis�p�urac� . this re��tion, pointing out that it could prevent people with narrow°�� fror��ua ��r g ��=��gelbaum pointed out that a minimum distance could he _,. ' p th��p�rtyfi�om�� ding onto the neighbor's property. �� . ��;k ��x,� Johnson objected to adding a required�l��cc'f�om the ighbor's property line, stating that neighbors will always do t��qs ��t ai�Qy eac � ' ther and he did not see why this was different. Goellner s��s�� th�,f�ve �€��_� Id be more reasonable than t� f ten feet, since ten feet would pr��nt��ig��, an`��mber of homeowners from � acquiring a permit, and bec�,��se �'��fee��'s c r �sten�vvith the setbacks required for other structures in the Cit� � oc��4�Se ��m _� um as��l if the serving window would be required to face the host's �'�� er��an oellner replied that could be handled during permitting. Waldhau��tate� � ��`"she dic��ot think five feet or ten feet would make a significant difference i� ��r an��rould be supportive of five feet. Kluchka and Blum stated that five ��,med �mal��a�het��but there was a majority consensus. Mr. Levy said that h� � no��e v�i��e��ter��tould be need for a required distance from the �t = property-�ine � It�rag ��,��he �tructures were protected. n ;� � �4 MOVED �bj��lal��%�,use�, ��. onded by Kluchka, and carried unanimously to recommend ��tx, appi��l for fi�am��a�ment to Zoning Code Section 11.04 Temporary Uses to allow Mobile pd Ve�i�ng��'��Residential Zoning Districts with the following changes: , £ # 1. The �i�� l��t� on mobile food vending in residential districts will be increased ��,rw,;��,. from six�`�o'eight hours. 2. Exceptions to certain regulations will be allowed with a Special Event permit. 3. The penalty for violations for a vendor will be a suspension of no more than thirteen months. 4. There would be a minimum distance of five feet from the property line. 5. The parking of mobile food vendors will be restricted to the host's property. 6. Language will be changed to clarify the difference between "vendor" and "applicant". 6 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 3. Other Business Waldhauser discussed a meeting she had attended of local activists organizing to promote affordable housing and informed the Commission that a group of activists will be forming in Golden Valley. She asked if there was a way for Golden Valley to partner with Minneapolis's program to sell vacant properties in North Minneapolis since the finro cities are adjacent to each other. She said she was unsure what such a partnership would look like but wanted to raise it as a possibility. Kluchka suggested having a formal presentation on the public art � ��., ��` �,,'�� Council Liaison Report �, �=�« ,-� �� Council Member Schmidgall reported on the bikeway feas��ty study ��IVayz�a and stated that he is expecting growth of cycle accessibility. �� a��i��`�-me��h '�� ; commission that Union Pacific had agreed to fix tun�el de��rioratf�a� at Bas '� �Creek and that two residents had been appointed to the Lig�#��tail "'i��ansit��vt��y committee. �� ,�� ` � ��,� Following the Council Liaison Report, Johnso�isc�`�i�ed a ��`�n he�iad recently accepted in case it was a conflict of interest. f��`�chka st�d th�� did not think it would be a problem but that he would ,r�� ; �t`�d Johns��recuse himself from any meetings involving that business. �� "�� '��>; ;�� " : F�.� 4. Adjournment � ��r£ �� ,� The meeting was adjourne�a�S:�f��am y�, � � .�.,�� . =a � �_,a, �, �� ;;M: � ,� � �� s ��: �� 'x � � � � �..,,�"e�,� ��+ � � 54.�TS�„ 1`„—r� ,j� •S . � � � tia � ��s" �S�`''�._'�� i 'i °��?� �� z�� s y � � �� ; � � �� v � �� a � �o- � ��a� � r' �. �.:. �;. �,� � w �� w��`5__�_��'��. 7 ��' �� Ph�ys�+ca� I�evelc��ent I)ep�artment 763-543-8f195/763-543-89 0�(fiax� �,�� ' ;a �—=' '. . . ., �d8ii � ii�� a � � Date: June 12, 2017 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Zoning Code Text Amendment—Discussion —Amending Zoning Code to Comply with the Religious land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) � � � �� Background The City sporadically receives inquiries from religious organizations that are interested in relocating to Golden Valley. Currently, the Zoning Code only allows churches in the Institutional "I-1" Sub-District, which is designated primarily for churches and schools. The definition of a church in the Code includes "a synagogue, rectory, parish house or similar building incidental to the principal use which is maintained and operated by an organized group for religious purposes." All of the properties currently zoned for I-1 use are long-established churches and no vacancies exist at this time. These properties are located primarily in large, customized buildings in residential neighborhoods (see attached map). The organizations inquiring are often interested in smaller spaces, sometimes in the Commercial and Light Industrial Zoning Districts. Staff conducted research and determined that adjustments should be made to the Zoning Code in order to improve compliance with federal law. Adjustments would also offer more opportunities to religious organizations as well as building owners in Golden Valley. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) protects religious institutions such as churches, synagogues, mosques,temples, and religious schools from burdensome and discriminatory land use regulations at the local level of government. The Act was passed by congress in 2000 after several lawsuits were filed against local governments around the country. The League of Minnesota Cities and the American Planning Association have recommended that all City governments review their Zoning Codes to be sure that the Code: • Treats all religious institutions in the same way, regardless of denomination • Allows religious institutions in the same Zoning Districts where other similar non-religious institutions are allowed (examples include private clubs or lodge halls) • Allows religious institutions in a reasonable amount of Zoning Districts by right so that special or conditional permits are not the only way to occupy a building • Reduce the necessity for a Conditional Use Permit as much as possible (thereby reducing risk of overly burdensome or discriminatory conditions of approval) • Site development requirements such as landscaping, off-street parking, height, and setbacks must be practical and no more restrictive than requirements for similar land uses Summarv of Staff Recommendations: • Strike the word "Church" from the City Code and define it under a more encompassing definition of"Places of Assembly" (a combined definition indicates equal treatment among these uses) • Allow Places of Assembly in all Institutional Sub-Districts (I-1 through I-5) • Consider whether to allow Places of Assembly by right (as long as all other city code requirements are met) in Commercial, Business and Professional Offices, I-394 Mixed Use, and Light Industrial Districts, or to require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for uses of a certain size (with size threshold yet to be determined) • Continue to prohibit Places of Assembly in the Industrial Zoning District • Prohibit Places of Assembly in all Residential Zoning Districts (R-1 through R-4) • Update parking requirements for Places of Assembly and allow shared parking arrangements with adjacent properties Recommended Definition Places of Assembly: A facility or portion thereof, together with its accessory buildings and uses, where a group of persons of similar beliefs or associations assemble for religious services, social events, or similar purposes. The term includes, but is not necessarily limited to, churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, lodge halls, and private clubs. Recommended Permissions Staff recommends that Places of Assembly be permitted by right in several Zoning Districts unless the use is of a certain size (yet to be determined) or includes a certain set of accessory uses, which could include child care facilities, classrooms, and soup kitchens or meal centers. Existing and Proposed Land Use Permissions Zoning District Existing Proposed for "Places of Assembly" Institutional (I-1) Churches Permitted Permitted Institutional (I-2) Not Listed Permitted Churches Not Listed Institutional (I-3) Lodge Halls, Private Clubs are Permitted Conditional Institutional (I-4) Not Listed Permitted 2 Existing and Proposed Land Use Permissions Zoning District Existing Proposed for "Places of Assembly" Institutional (I-5) Not Listed Permitted Permitted for small institutions Commercial Not Listed Conditional for large institutions Conditional with Accessory Uses Business and Permitted for small institutions Professional Office Not Listed Conditional for large institutions Conditional with Accessory Uses Permitted for small institutions I-394 Mixed Use (A, B, C) Not Listed Conditional for large institutions Conditional with Accessory Uses Permitted for small institutions Light Industriat "Institutional Uses" Prohibited Conditional for large institutions Conditional with Accessory Uses Industrial Not Listed Prohibited Residential (R-1, R-2, R- Not Listed Prohibited 3, R-4) Accessory uses in this case could include child care facilities, classrooms, and soup kitchens (also referred to as meal centers). This proposal is consistent with current permissions given to Child Care Facilities, Adult Day Care Facilities, and Recreational Facilities in the Code. Soup kitchens are not currently listed. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for Places of Assembly in several Zoning Districts when accessory uses are present. This would give the Planning Commission and City Council the ability to impose conditions on the recommendation of approval in order to address any areas of concern, which would most likely be associated with traffic, parking, increases in density, and noise. If an owner applies for a CUP, the Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the Council based upon any or all of the following factors (which need not be weighed equally): 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City 3. Effect upon property values in the neighboring area 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area* 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses* 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use* 7. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use 8. Any increase in flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use 3 9. Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use 10. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents *Factors most associated with Places of Assembly Summary of Recommendations Staff is seeking input from the Planning Commission on these concepts. If the Commission agrees with the majority of the suggested changes, staff will schedule public hearings to review underlined/overstruck language in the City Code. Attachments Map of I-1 Zoned Properties in Golden Valley(1 page) 4 � � a � gLL � 0 � r �3 a� � � � �._..�------`°v - . . . . • • • _.�.�-�----------------------�--•, o � i �-2,------_�_.�.—•-•-�•-•-•- � � o � « �a �.� ;, i v�� ,wr� � � � . Ixa�vu,� �.. � . � .� � � �� 3�a w � i �� y� ! � d� (�n ! �j c a ' t= 3m+o o S `�� ' � c-i o � . . O P - j . y'a�.G � , V � w . �t.. 3 � L. _""_""_"_" .____"", �C S p � �L '2 e� ��$�:. . m`' �c� <; ; y a .. .. I lV0 Z 4'i � ,,.... ._. �,,r��.. HuqMopeaw ., ., �� I o � � .�01 4 , � � ' _..-_-••-_ -••-••-- ---_-_—-�� a V � q _` t . � � i i O � D p � � � , � �f" "�, ! p � m m �� d Z � i O t �t . b. � .. V a; � L � � 10 7 ' t°9, N � (p ! �'> >� j > >V x a� � m � � � C � 1 N � �iY ` ' m o � t p � C U I p � 'C "`' e. � i� ' I V � �� m L .� ��'�� ' � "�, � "� . C � , m ,. �`�.----�.! i �y A:+ 9 0 7 � �` _ � U r�r i �O�. '� �.. ` GC d'C) � >C1 A1 G � . � m � . _ � i ` , c c � , . ,,,.;. o �s t� .,,. - m �a � .., ... � � � ...�.V � . ... : x x.�"�eliZ e N peoxssoa �'O m 1 V � � �O p v N :�. sxauiny �rang ec�ia7S �t;� � 1..,:..,� O m L � a C� 7 ,d � a .�.. � J: Q �£;: � �. , a°� �� C,7.N '�S'C m l0 C� � m �e ....� _..;, � n � 4 � a b �a b � . . � �C J ot{!a �•O y .:�- H ng assey C ,.. ,. O CC..� I�. . •!a �>�� b, H ' 3 � . i-� ,�m M � w � L b i LL V o �� I� �Y o3 , z �aL � ..� � � o . • �' � L� � ...H xQ selbnoQ�� ! H x s�et�iaoQ .. L(��, .. A� �C t V t ��v p D S aeg�'°.,Y G V f/� � � ot E �:o �iy � :.��.,�,Q L p;;tC P. t3� � O t"o N " g ang (� .,, �V°� nqsdut� N Q �p� C�L �� d O ang 6asia[�� A�6, V = �d�. W�L S aeg ��..1 :9 C y ��..$- m�Vevaisino �i y r• �n t �:, � � N = i jy ang epena ^�;.. T ...J W m �d o � � 3� R �Nl C ��.° = O '� O l6 3L 4 U C•CLq � �� E,^.�,.,.. O � ■ ��C) J U .� fq�U" g aeg �� . ' .. �� et��6svva � � C �m,, � ae �� y m . ..., . pue�sS aP�41I % � m;. � �� v f,� � � � �; ''• � y V J x ang eK;auuiM �... . �H ang eKfauuc�y S ang ENaa¢ 3��! � x v?M � y I 0.' ��} � � ^ �w x��,�q*TV , r z H a�� " �', 1 CS� =„a,�,�'" +� B � � D ssisssoascM N `� .. t P �' � �-�.,. �. a� � a o ; m j .. . G� �' `, P�IH sIi?LN Iaiaaa� >�+� ;d• � H ang auoog Y y :� ��:` � � ti,'� qti 1 ��" H ang znleoap 7 y'� p I a .r . � i * T M « � W o b i i � �� q I �"e 3 i � , � � � ! . H ang uqossiapuay� � `-: `, � • l, m ,..K,�-•,.,r�s.q—se...,.. .p73; _ . m ... . � . .. . e-,�..�..�..�,....T+� F ..,.. .„. . � ..��. . S>,._-".�d, t0 ..,.._,. .... . . . . . � . .. . . P � k1 � �t,�., . � 4