Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-1996 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • • SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review of Minutes: September 4, 1996(Enclosed) 2. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION: Call to Order Items for Decision 3. Call to Order 4. Roll Call 5. Planning Case No. 455-96 NOTICE DONE 8265 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Mounds View Economic Development Authority Variance request to recognize exsting lot width of 80 feet where 100 feet is required for • corner lots. 6. Planning Case No. 452-96 (Continued from September 4, 1996) NOTICE DONE 3025 County Road H Stahl Construction on behalf of the New Apostolic Church Request for a variance to allow an ecnroachment of five feet into the 35 foot required front yard setback,a conditional use permit to construct a 2,002 church in the R-1, Single Family Zoning District,and a development review. PLANNING COMMISSION:Adjorn to AGENDA SESSION Items for Discussion 7. Planning Case No. 457-96 8480 Pleasant View Drive Ronald L. Gardner Request for a variance to allow an encroachment to within 10 feet of the rear property line when a 30 foot rear setback is required,to replace a deck with a three-season porch. APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4110 Agenda Continued Planning Commission Agenda • September 18, 1996 Page 2 8. Planning Case No. 458-96 7090 Knollwood Drive Vic&Son Construction Request for a variance to allow a house addition within six feet of an existing garage. 9. Planning Case No. 459-96 7755 Spring Lake Road John R. Manning Request for a variance to allow construction of a concrete driveway at one foot from the side property line where five feet is required. 10. Planning Case No. SP-0008-96 • Revision of parking lot setbacks between residential and non-residential uses • Revision of lot area requirements for public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers,public and private educational institutions limited to elementary,junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches,chapels,temples and synagogues. 11. Discussion on Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Antennas in preparation for development of an ordinance addressing this issue in the City of Mounds • View(Ordinance No. 588). 12. Staff Report • regular meeting in October(October 9 or 30) 13. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14. Adjournment • UNAPPROVED • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 4, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:11 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, 2. Roll Call. Brooks, Johnston, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. (Commissioners Brasaemle and Obert were absent.) • ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Director Pamela Sheldon, City Attorney Bob Long and Recording Secretary Tamara Saefke. Commissioner Miller noted some corrections to the 3. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 1996 Minutes. Page 4, 3rd paragraph should August 7, 1996 be changed to read ". . . fact that the main office for the New Apostolic Church is located. . ." Also page 5, fourth paragraph should be changed to read ". . .however, the rate would be controlled." Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to approve the minutes of August 7, 1996 as Amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no citizen requests or comments from the 4. Citizen Requests and floor. Comments From the Floor. Community Development Director Sheldon informed 5. Planning Case No. . the commissioners that this request was for a minor 454-96 subdivision for property located at 8021 Eastwood Road. Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 2 The property owner, Erik Anderson, is requesting that this property be split into two lots. Ms. Sheldon explained that at the last discussion session, there were some items of concern, however all of these have since been resolved (utility easement, evidence of ownership). Staffs recommendation would be that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this subdivision to the City Council via Resolution No. 472-96. Commissioner Stevenson noted that in past cases, the resolution or the application refers to a Park Dedication Fee. He felt it perhaps should be included in this Resolution. Ms. Sheldon stated per their request she would add a paragraph to the Resolution to reflect that the applicant has paid the$100 fee for Park Dedication. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to Approve Resolution No. 472-96, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Erik Anderson, 8021 Eastwood Road, as Amended. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Bill Diem of Stall Construction was present. He 6. Planning Case No. distributed revised plans to the Commission members 452-96 and staff. Community Development Director Pamela Sheldon explained that this application was to allow for the construction of a 2,054 square foot church facility to be located at 3025 County Road H. She noted that the application before the commission consisted of three parts: a variance request for the front setback along County Road H, the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a church facility, and a development review. • The applicant is the Stahl Construction Company, on • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 3 behalf of the New Apostolic Church. Ms. Sheldon explained that the variance request requires a Public Notice before the Planning Commission can make a decision. The notice for the September 4th meeting was not published, therefore a decision in regard to the variance cannot be made until the September 18th meeting. The Planning Commission can, however, review the request for the Conditional Use Permit and the Devel- opment Review. Ms. Sheldon explained the requirements for a Conditional use permit for property located in an R-1 district, including church use. She noted that the application currently does not meet the front yard setback requirements of 35 feet. The applicant has requested a variance to address the front setback. In regard to screening requirements, it appears that the revised plan provides ample buffering between the parking • lot and the adjoining properties if it were just to meet requirements established for permitted uses. For conditional use permits, the Planning Commission and City Council do have the ability to determine whether or not the width is enough to provide adequate buffering. Conditions can be applied to provide greater yard setbacks if it is felt necessary in order to make the use compatible with its adjacent property uses. In a survey of buffer areas for other Mounds View Churches, the range of buffer is between 14 and 63 feet (church parking lots and residences). The typical distance is about 29 to 31 feet. The parking lot as proposed provides for seven compact parking spaces along the north property line. lithe buffering is provided as proposed, depending upon how far the cars pull up into those spaces, there may be only five to seven feet left unobstructed in the drive aisle behind them. Ms. Sheldon referred to a letter she received from the Blaine/Spring Lake Park/Mounds View Fire Department which addressed the drive aisle. They recommend that a minimum of 20 feet be kept open in this area which poses a significant constraint. However, the Fire Marshall has stated that if the building had a sprinkler system, they may be able to approve a narrower driveway. Their main concern • is that they need enough width to keep the fire truck away from the building in the event that the building collapsed (which would be less Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 4 likely if the building had a sprinkler system). Ms. Sheldon noted that the buffering as proposed is really less than typical, and it would be reduced if the parking spaces in that area were made functional. Ms. Sheldon noted that as proposed, five of the parking spaces are less than the city's normal requirement(9'X 20'). They currently measure 9'X 18'. There is also a 17 foot drive aisle along the east side of the property behind the first bay of parking and that drive aisle is not sufficient for cars to back up. Ms. Sheldon noted there is room, however to move one bank of parking over to achieve the 23 feet needed in order for the cars to be able to back up. In order to bring the parking spaces into compliance with the city's requirement, some of the buffer would need to be reduced. She suggested the Planning Commission consider whether the number of parking spaces provided is adequate and also the fact that the number of compact spaces is larger than the 10% allowed (they currently propose seven spaces). 5 In regard to the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit, the city must consider the compatibility between adjacent uses and this proposal, the amount of screening, and whether or not there will be adverse affects on adjacent residential properties. Ms. Sheldon stated staff sees enough dimensional problems on the site that they question whether a church of the size proposed fits. If the proposal were for a smaller church, they may be able to achieve the parking requirements and provide sufficient buffering. Ms. Sheldon noted that the Commission may need to determine how they see the proposal relating to the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the zoning, she noted that the neighborhood consists mainly of oversized lots with low intensity and one of the characteristics of this particular plan is that it would be a much more intensive use of the lot. It is staffs view that it is difficult to meet the intent of the zoning district (R-1, Single Family)with this size facility. With respect to the Conditional Use Permit, staff would S recommend that the Planning Commission recommend • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 5 to the City Council that it be denied. Ms. Sheldon noted that the purpose of the Development Review is to check the plan to see if it meets the dimensional requirements of the code. The areas where the proposal fails to meet the requirements are as follows: 1) the front setback 2) number of parking spaces-they have provided 30, they need 31 and of those 10%, or 3 spaces, can • be compact. Ms. Sheldon stated staff feels that it is difficult to accommodate the sizes of the parking lot and the building on the site, so the plans have been designed with more compact spaces. There is also a problem with the length of the spaces. There is a problem with the drive aisle on the north side of the building. With regard to signage, the code does not provide much • guidance for churches in residential districts, so staff has used the neighborhood business district as a guide. That district allows for 100 square feet of signage. The current proposal shows 115 square feet. Staff would also suggest that any lighting be at a very low level and turned off at a certain time each night. The lighting for the parking lot as proposed would be building mounted on the north and east sides and would shine out on the parking lot. Staff is somewhat concerned about it shining out into the yards of the adjacent homes and would recommend that lighting be put on the perimeter of the lot so it would shine inward. Staff recommended denial of the Development Review, based on the fact that some of the dimensional requirements have not been met and they do not see an easy way to achieve them. Ms. Sheldon noted two letters which she distributed to the Commissioners: one from the Fire Department and one from Paul Ostrow who represents Mr. and Mrs. Moon, expressing concern about whether or not the project meets • the criteria and that it would have serious impact on the client's property. Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. William Diem, Project Manager of Stahl Construction, responded to the concerns expressed by Ms. Sheldon as follows: 1) The Fire Department informed him that as long as the church had a sprinkler system and that the structure was within (at the further point of the building) 150 feet of a fire hydrant, adequate protection would be provided to the building. The farthest point of the building from the fire hydrant is less than 150 feet. (The 20 foot wide access road was required if the building were constructed without a sprinkler system.) The sprinker system must be designed by a licenses contractor, and submitted for approval to the City. That is why the system is not shown in the informational packet. This would be submitted prior to the start of construction. Mr. Diem explained that this facility, since it is the first of • its prototype, to improve the design and to allow for the handicapped person in a wheelchair. What they are now proposing is to eliminate one or two of the rear pews to allow for wheelchair space. This will reduce the permanent seating capacity. Mr. Diem provided detailed information in regard to the "revised" proposal which he distributed at the meeting of the Planning Commission, noting the general layout of theiacility. 2) The entrance width is a full 22 feet with a five foot radius curb cut. 3) The parking stalls are 20 feet long, with a 23 foot center aisle, and 20 foot parking stalls abutting the church. Mr. Diem suggesting that the Commission review the parking lot requirements, as MNDOT only requires an 18 foot space and they require 22 feet for the drive aisles. 4) The new proposal reflects only three compact parking spaces which is within the 10% limit. (Mr. Diem stated • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 7 at the last Planning Commission meeting, he was informed that they could have up to 20% of the spaces for compact cars.) The proposal shows that the depth from the point of the striping to curb line is at 19 feet(actual is 19.4"). This is 8" from the ordinance requirements for standard parking stalls. Even if a car were not parked so that it's tire were flush against the curb, eleven feet would still be available for a fire truck to pass through, which is their minimum requirement. 5) The new proposal includes 31 parking stalls. 6) The ordinance requires screening of at least 5 feet. This can be provided by installing a fence or by installing trees and landscaping. They have provided for a ten foot buffer with the installation of plantings to provide a variety of color to be enjoyed by the adjoining properties • as well. The plantings as proposed would be staggered with some of them being fast-growing, to provide sufficient screening. Mr. Diem explained that upon Planning Commission approval, they would propose to extend the landscaped area along the east property line. 7) They meet the requirement of the 30 foot sight triangle at the southwest corner of the property. They still intend to The new plan depicts a 22,500 square foot site. Of this 13,429 square feet will be impervious surface. The green space has increased to 9,071 square feet(they are at 40.47% green space which exceeds most cities' requirements by 10%). In summary, for the Conditional Use Permit, they have complied with the five foot buffer • Mr. Diem noted that they now comply with the following Dimensional Requirements for the Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 8 Development Review: lot area, lot width,building height, side building setbacks, rear building setbacks, parking lot setbacks, parking space requirements& maximum compact car spaces allowed. The four spaces • which previously were proposed to be compact spaces for a total of seven, are fractions from ordinance requirements. Commissioner Stevenson commented that he would like to save any questions he may have until the next meeting as he, along with the other commissioners and staff had just received copies of the new proposal and he has not had adequate time to determine if the questions they had have all been addressed satisfactorily. A discussion followed in regard to the time limits established by State Law as to the length of time allowed between the submittal of a proposal to the decision date. The normal limit is 60 days, which can be extended by the city at its discretion for an • additional 60 days. If no decision is made by the City Council by then, it is considered approved with no action taken. The applicant can determine if they want to extend the time. Ms. Sheldon noted that 60 days from the date of the application(July 15, 1996)would be September 12, 1996. The applicant has been sent a letter notifying them that the City is extending the review time for an additional 60 days or to November 11. Mr. Long, City Attorney, noted that the criteria under 1106.04 noted that the front yard setback can be no less than 35 feet. The applicant is providing only a 30 foot setback. He wondered if the church would be able to be built to comply with the 35 foot front setback requirements. Mr. Diem noted that the church could be built with a 35 foot front yard setback, however the buffer on the north would need to be adjusted down to five feet(this buffer area was a point of discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting and the proposal was based upon input from that discussion). Commissioners Johnston noted that at the last meeting, input from residents resulted in the Commissioners feelings that a 10 foot buffer would provide a better buffer to those residential properties abutting the church property. . Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Peterson asked about the grading along the backside in the Northeast corner and,if building blocks would be included as initially proposed. Mr. Diem noted that by moving the curbline in five feet, it creates a natural contour, so the water containment and the exiting is controlled. No retaining wall is needed. In regard to concerns of residents in regard to property value of neighboring properties, Mr. Diem stated they had an independent Realtor survey the neighboring properties adjacent to some of the churches in Mounds View and they found that the average price difference per square foot of the building did not change more than$.50 per square foot. They found that in 50% of the cases, the neighboring properties were higher in value than the properties on the other side. • Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, commented that the survey did not likely include any property which had a parking lot as close as what this would be to their property.. Commissioner Miller asked what the actual size of the parking spaces is for the new proposal. Mr. Diem noted that they are 9'X 20' along the east area. The five spaces to the North are short by 8". Commissioner Peterson noted that the spaces on the North indicate one corner of the car extending over the curb. Ms. Sheldon stated, in briefly reviewing the new plan, the parking spaces East of the church are at the correct size. The ones along the North side(compact) are still short 6" in width. Therefore, they would not be in compliance with the code. The angle of the parking makes it difficult to determine code compliance as no guidance for measuring those spaces is provided. She noted the usual way of measuring these spaces. Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 . Regular Meeting Page 10 Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, commented that one of the criteria in a Conditional Use Permit is that R-1 is low intensity. When a parking lot is designed the way that this one is proposed to allow more spaces to fit, it indicates that they are trying to squeeze too much on too small of a lot. Therefore, one has to determine whether or not this is an appropriate use for the property. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H., stated one of the criteria is that the proposed structure will not have an adverse affect upon the neighboring residential properties. He believes that a parking lot next to the neighboring yards will have an adverse affect on their properties. He believes it will have an adverse affect on potential sale of his property in the future. Mr. Diem, in response, stated all of the changes they have made to the plans have not been to change the design or scope of the project to fit the ordinance. It has been to try to appease the . neighbors. It is to try to make the property as beautiful as possible. Barbara Cloues, 2875 County Rd. H, asked if the church members, after learning how many changes were needed just to comply with requirements, felt perhaps the site was not adequate. Donald Kratt, 1437 76th Avenue N.E. Fridley, stated the majority of the changes have come about due to their attempts to appease the neighbors. Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, stated there is nothing in the proposal that is of benefit to her. Without the variance, the buffer would need to be reduced to five feet which the Planning Commission agreed is not adequate. Mr. Diem noted that the ordinance allows for buffering either by fencing or by landscaping and they would meet the five foot requirement with a fence. In regard to a discussion about granting a variance for a proposal • which could be constructed without one, Mr. Long offered the following: Under 1106.04, the Planning • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commission would need to find that the proposal meets the setback requirements unless there is a hardship which justifies a variance(the proposal does not meet the front setback at this time). Under section 1125.02 of the code in regard to granting variances, the hardship must be on the owner of the land or the applicant and not a hardship to the adjacent properties. Ms. Sheldon stated the Commissioners must keep in mind that if the building met the setback requirements, would it be possible to meet the buffering and parking lot requirements? Mr. Diem showed changes that were made to the original landscaping plan. The focus of their attention has been to the area abutting Mr. Moon's property. Additionally, if the two pews in the back of the building are,removed, the number of parking spaces could also be reduced. • Mr. Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive stated the plan would be able to meet all of the requirements if the applicant reduced the size of the building. With a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission has the right to tell the applicant that the building is too large for the parcel of land. He knows of other properties that would be more suitable for a church. He feels that a parking lot so close to his property will depreciate the value of his home. Furthermore, it does not fit within the Conditional Use Permit requirements. Commissioner Miller stated she would be interested in following up with proposing a smaller structure. She wondered how the size of the proposed building was determined. Mr. Diem stated it was based upon the current number of parishioners with growth taken into consideration as well as additional space in the event of weddings and funerals. Commissioner Johnston stated the Fire Marshall requires a 20 foot wide access road, as documented in his letter to Ms. Sheldon. S Mr. Diem has mentioned that a 12 foot drive is acceptable if the building is provided with a sprinkler system. He would like this Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 12 information verified. Mr. Diem stated he would also like the Fire Marshall to verify that the width of the drive aisle is really not an issue if the farthest part of the building is within 150 feet of a fire hydrant. He stated they would also be willing to provide a siamese hydrant in the corner. Barb Croues, 2875 County Road H, asked about snow removal and stated her concern that storage of it on the site would affect the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Diem stated if this was an issue, they would have it removed from the site. Commissioner Miller stated she would like to know if two parking spaces are removed on the north side, could the remainder be made into parallel parking spaces? • Chair Peterson stated he feels the main concern is the size of the lot for the proposed use, however many other issues of concern have been addressed as well. Overall, he would admit that the revised proposal is much more acceptable than before. A discussion arose as to whether the Commissioners would like to see two different plans at the next meeting: one taking into account a five foot variance and one without the variance. Commissioner Stevenson stated he really could not see a reason to submit a plan with a variance, however the choice is the applicant's. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to table the request for the New Apostolic Church until the September 18, 1996 meeting. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried (Brooks was excused from the meeting) Ms. Sheldon noted that she had received a request 7. Planning Case No. from a resident for a change to the city's zoning code. SP-008-96 • This request pertains to parking lot setbacks between • Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 13 residential and non-residential uses. Mr. Moon has requested that a provision be added to the code that would require that where there is non-residential uses in a residential district, the parking lot associated with those uses be at least 15 feet from the property line and that the area be used for landscaping and buffering. Ms. Sheldon noted that one must also take into consideration how a change such as this would affect existing churches. It appears that most of the existing churches would meet the 15 foot proposed requirement. The Planning Commission must determine whether it should be fifteen feet or more than fifteen feet. She would recommend that it be based somewhat on the size of the site and that an allowance be made for existing parking lots to remain but if they are ever reconstructed, they would need to be brought into conformance. Ms. Sheldon noted that code allows any property owner • in Mounds View to initiate an amendment. Another issue that the Commissioners may want to look at also deals with minimum lot size required for these types of facilities. Commissioner Miller stated she would like to discuss the changes further and would also like to see what impact a change like this would have on existing buildings and schools. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would like a survey completed to see what other cities' ordinances are with regard to setbacks. Ms. Sheldon stated she had prepared an Ordinance and Resolution in regard to the requested amendments for the Commissioners' consideration. She noted that part of the reason she wanted to present this information at this time is that it does have some relationship to the other case and staff did not want to prevent it from moving forward. Discussion on this can be scheduled into the September 18th meeting, if the commissioners so desire. • Chair Peterson stated there was some discussion at the last meeting Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 14 and it was felt that it would not be appropriate to apply ordinance changes to those applications already in process. Motion/Second: Miller/Johnston to continue the discussion of Planning Case#SP-0002-96 at the September 18, 1996 meeting. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms:Sheldon noted that this item was strictly a follow up 8. Planning Case No. SP-0022-96 for the Planning Commission. The commission has Revision to Flood Plain already passed on their recommendations that this Zoning be approved by the City Council. The changes to the Flood Plain Zoning are being requested by the Department of Natural Resources to keep the city in compliance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's about Flood Plain Zones. The resolution will merely reconfirm their recommendation of approval for revisions. Motion/Second: Miller/7ohnston to Approve Resolution No. 473-96 As Amended (to corret errors). 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms. Sheldon noted the items which will be on the 9. Report of Staff. Agenda for the September 18, 1996 meeting. Chair Peterson noted that Gary Stevenson and Bobbie 10. Report of Chair. Brooks had excused absences from the August 21, 1996 agenda meeting. All others were present. Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 15 There being no further business before the Planning 11. Adjournment Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • • 09/13/1996 11:24 6127570854 SAEFKE PAGE 01 . =c1r4= . MMnT TNn,S VIEW CITY C Past-It•Fax Note 7671 Date A./31+ , *of 0. • To ,, t.t Dan F rA, n Fq1i* # J// Y-/_' Fillf Itease sign NAME 1 ADDRESS gOlt,tafi ),1 . ° N,37. 76f4 Ave Ak, �r 1'd// ..ii•. .5 V 3? 04,'�--1 --n<>41- Avr ki c c Y, cl t ecm 1•J 5 1.t7,- - J rLL g.&4.4"i` 42I/ p OAP V, AV: N GJ C6-PA _Al/Ar 5 S-6/1 I . - r79747&/m'2. # ; .Q //D / t_ ri.e gyri) f eAi7 , ccel/ La Ur 0S-rf u k 3558 rift, o Si- me Akplc, 554.IF, /77A/e_Ir,_/e i el;;/ .J-fid. SJ L i.'cLA'. P11 _71 b' S -z. ifiZZO —C7 4.1 • 7sr:21 5,4.4,4,72.. 11€ Al/2h" v s"—/, z 14 afi c,14 44 ide.0.- . e . s-- c?7 6th a v- 1 4.-W, Lo.,-4 4 1 0-4 4.0-J-c 40_ I(}JiaiL V 1 t, 15Z7 Pl .r c14_6L4,,' c_ fi( (a 4 t't i1/4s SNY6 41 . — -- ,, 4 Q Cc�,a� 1IG1T7 iII/I Gt A� C+, I .,%-"//Z-. f - f colt. 4,r i P/ aI Okotk, bR 4 .f. oc 1\1 US(1 i,(taq Pt_a _scoKI „, ` V t ... 1 .. Av r26'7— Gam ' If Nom) 3-, h f.- 53-7/2. J414; (c.,,„c ) a oo,. .4 ..J 00%14*-t).„A4.-4z- #.1.yseL .0,19A do .P.1 -# Ins-tilkii2 ,. ji,b, losid kesicit,4 ik. Ne. a.„%t limi ssu-?q Li tsem, t 1001 Prv_54- 4= PQ- lii . , 11 ,6.444 14/,11,c,4 ?,,,g) Co v,-i-' Ril 1-'1- t' ' /frI Ar-r. ,rs - 0 Item #5 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 455-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a 20 foot variance from the 100 foot width requirement for corner lots. Petitioner: Mounds View Economic Development Authority Location: 8265 Spring Lake Road PIN No. 06-30-23-23-0003 Total acreage of existing property is 17,440 square feet Zoning Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. • Applicable Regulations: Section 1004.02 Subd 2. requires a 100 foot frontage for corner lots. • Section 1125.02 states the criteria for review of variances as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands,structures or buildings in the same district. • 4- Planning Case No. 455-96: 8265 Spring Lake Road11111 September 18, 1996 Page 2 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application • Zoning Map Surveyor's Certificate Hardship Statement Resolution 477-96 (for approval) Background: Due to the deteriorating condition of the house located at 8265 Spring Lake Road, the Mounds View Economic Development Authority(EDA) is in the process of purchasing the property. The EDA created a Housing Replacement Program to demolish hazardous homes and to redevelop lots to provide safe, decent and sanitary housing. The house located at 8265 Spring Lake Road was foreclosed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and offered to the EDA to purchase prior as a result of the poor condition of the home. The poor condition of the home made the home ineligible for an FHA loan. The EDA sent an appraiser out to survey the condition of the property and found that the foundation was bowing which would eventually collapse. It is the intention of the EDA to demolish the house and sell the property to a buyer/developer team for redevelopment of the lot: The property is a corner lot with dimensions of 80' x 218'. According to the Mounds View Municipal Code, a 100' frontage is required for a corner lot. Prior to proceeding with redevelopment, the EDA is applying for a variance to recognize the existing lot dimensions and to assure that a replacement home may be built on the lot. • . Planning Case No. 455-96: 8265 Spring Lake Road September 18, 1996 Page 3 The EDA is requesting a 20 foot variance from the minimum 100 foot frontage requirement allowing the lot to be buildable. The applicant has provided a letter of hardship. Analysis/ Recommendation: The minimum square footage for lot area required by the Code is 12,500 feet. The property well exceeds that requirement with 17,440 square feet. In addition, the width of the property is 218 feet; 118 feet over the required 100 foot requirement. This lot was platted by Ramsey County in 1939 with the 80 foot width frontage; thus, the variance request does not result from the actions of the applicant. The remainder of the block has been platted into lots such that no additional vacant, unplatted land is available to add to this lot in order to increase its width to the required 100 feet. In addition, a lot split was granted in 1976 by the Mounds View Planning Commission with the 80 foot width. If the variance is not granted, a building permit cannot be issued for the lot and redevelopment will not proceed. • • Variance Criteria (1125.02 Sub. 2) The applicant has provided a letter addressing each of the criteria for granting variances. In summary, the variance procedure is available to address situations where the normal application of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The ability to construct a single family residence in the R-1 zoning district is the normal expectation for property owners in this district. Granting the ability to construct a single family home on this lot does not confer any special privilege that is denied to other property owners in this district. The width of this lot was created almost 60 years ago and did not result from the actions of the applicant. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Resolution No. 477-96 granting the variance for a 20 foot reduction in the 100 foot width requirement for corner lots. • . . CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW i PLANNING APPLICATION . - e APPLICANT: 4u n -I r Lkrte} F D 4 Phone 171V-30, ADDRESS: aYo • Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box): . Owner of Property Q Contract for Deed Owner • 0 Lessee, operator, Manager 0 Agreement to Purchase Q Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City aeon of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: . Address/General Location ga/a S S prirtj L e Rptr Legal Description or Property Identification Number Cie,30. 3a3CCo3 AP• _i. t,..- _ �-1- - r= h i- • 0.3 P4 Legal Owner: Name/Address r�� W ,c1 Y -r-I-- n C- L.of 1-1. Present Use (check appropriate box): Q UndevelopecfNacant `81., Single Family Dwelling Duplex/Two. Family Dwelling 0 Multi-Family (No. of Units - 0 Business/Commercial Establishment Q Industrial Establishment O Other (explain) Property Classification: Q Abstract 0 Torrens • RECUEST: 'Please note: Applicant may be responsible for aacitianal fees associates • the review of this request I HE--IE.-.=Y DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRU- ,� o / •Signa . _ av Rezoni • S200/acre.minimum 5200.maximum St.000 p-• • Dedication Fee R-t to R-2-575.aii others 3200 Oats Paid . .anal Use Permit R•1 tit R-2-S75.all otters Scut Receipt Number Code Appeal S75 OeveiooaS to Plan Review S100/acre.minimum 100.maximum Sy00 Total Fees Paid Minor Sucaivision 5150 Oats Paid Mair Subaivisian 5250 plus 5250 deposit Receipt Number • Como. ?!an Amendment 5200 Wedana Alteration Permit S50 plus ceocsit determines by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wettana surfer Permit S1a Oars Paid Planning Sign S50 Receipt Number PUO S350 PUO Amendment SI 50 Date of tmal aedon APPRCVW it DENIED _ TASL-M Oats q/ I 't9 (p Planning Case No. Admin.Account Na. • B LAI N E ! _ 1 AIRI. ! 9 M1.-_- - • — • • — • • —NORTH—COUNTY 3� ,LINE— .. . . - 11 _ 11 `67C7.-- 410 v- • • • I 1 R ! 0tEEN �1 : ..r. � � I • a,eo _ 11 _ 11 _ 1 N.t N.� Nab =^ 1427 WT said 0eM um 147 MIS ! M • 907 9.46 3+.77 46'0 4677 .•."'�S•r� 467 1471 I NN _ 0.1171 i[ ! 41..90 1 N • • I=UCEI mat ! • Ma ! • Ntl 1 NM 1446 • M14 6`13 Wm. Me! 1 1 rims 1 I 3411• 3436 I IMO 4646 I .. *Q. 64311 NA Iiffic I SW • MM I w+ UM ? wa I a... 3113 N 0471, w0 °'a° .-7 6,2 Mt3 I 662• 1 643• MST 1 "32 Wg I 901•, 11 901 141111•0 4671 1443 3.,"3523 467 46711 1470 6171 µ2y W •'11 1413 I 1411 I sa7o 1419 1 467 41475 I MIS M W •441• riQ7 Nl• 1411 1 84 - =11111111= 6401 I 6103 two 466. riga 1 6.00 1461 I Iri131 LL• saw f was I mat I �1R 1727 a'OD as» m° 6.66 1 4164 n 6711 1 sang rim !•"•0 a, • u•• 3]371 •••1 I 9401 ! ••190 �T .. 3173 6311+ tlq 173, I coo saes ! 1766 6301 1753 u7D sa531 6Y7 ! a7a2jI u°° .� anal 4272 _� 1373 I 6240 ssn ( 4171 ext 5390 I I I 1371346 1 saes e I .Tao I am am 41271 I u» 1371 1362 I a77a"? 4127, 1 sat' •, 6315aa 1 a • • &N 1351 1 s3I I a»a, 13- 1 u°• 551511.340 134$ t LW arm i 1377 1.365 I WOO wI_ east (. a333 1 a'° um I 55" WM 6257 yr I PF !Teo tJ3e ;a1sa 0317 11.7.3 I 53117 5335 t 62/7 1315 ! 1311 I 1370 •377 u,^55340 Q • 5335 nu- 6110 , sa>D 62311 1133 1311 I 4133: 6263 ! ma sacra saw:wee u,od»1 la�o 1706 sax 3370 1333 , 2322 4767 1 62110 1 63110 M I 4741 I 53 0 1301 I 13,0 /'� 013 1 . `L -.,� 1 4131 uao -3713 ( 1290maI .m u°, 1 sxo-��•1'6173 I mo 17173 AROA' MY 6213 - salt 1 1390• L0!1!, tan I Iwo ala, , a 677 6ZlOIt.7 • 6312 M/� 41x7 1 6:611• GRov o ! am I awl cm nee Q2°° 1 62401 as7 (I 1300 oaRK 6x1 1 a 6727 3741. m611 Elm PARK wt 62141 1 2727 I 6712 ab, I 6170 ma 11710`�6241• '� Pr { I i am W am gaol •7.1 : .1 .. $�. «j 11460 ,ex, ' _17+11 7:1E4111 �' I a• 5333 C •6270 EiQ Q•„ ... « nu 62714111 I . 15337 am •271 MOA~ `.✓ 11747 \ee .:c. -: >: ;:I . '' 212 r. .f . r.{� s' '32„ I j lift j 1 i xl �. 533. .» . JIMI 1 -,^ 621 ` -1� • UM 5327 , :14):1:. ( 4114 11113 I I 6224 6241 1707 ('� 17 I I I _ 1766 I «I«I«I«t [ 6213 6217 82001 !!!!!����� • •�• 2753 0153 4.4 . n ._ II"n axx6,iIt -• • _ Inn 131:3 3146 •171 I .• 62626 1I . 3, 6160 .4 4.7'1 g'a . 1 �1tL,� Lam/' 16 . ., 1111 .a,-O I—�t: 1150 �2 �L� al e0 ,at 8 A r ( 7tlif I al. 272 a• y�� e,+9 1 ::� 2711 IN'• _1M .,,.. ; 1fltl�i� 1133 1 �,�.,\J si .-- .. —�`. n� 2711 \\\ 1111• 1132 n27 0,7111030 1131.'\• 31`1 II nu 1611.. 7*�ltl _ y r 11 ryt L °/ 7-S \ • \•\� 1311 ^ �i�w.1=�Y 6,• g10, • !-IS zI.^•t^ ' Iz ..,1=1za12e 12itihhI =I x I ti 1111 I M1 jXl$i:Ix1 1wI^P1a 9g01 I_ .11, , 41 61� Z \ • \\\ j a s15i�i�'-- - ![ 11°°;• ; �•2.11� eon i^ 1? °227 'XI g�r moos jal I)aow coal i \ . • C ^ 1053{ I •••a 'r+. •O7, I 011. 5011 i 1061 •0727 ( $0771 1 $077 en, y0 1 ��,• ease I a= Mee I •210 1153 I emo �' re2eo. } I "\ • qi Q .0., 41 6216-boa 4042 0043 1 1012 1011 I 6044 3141 I eon e0•, 1 N.- P - ,6,41 403. I \\� ao2s I 6137 40.D i 6011 60331I 11021 I 6233 4646 n \\ • , 11623 1- 1021 60111 6213 • 1022! 11 0011 I 1000 am 0072 46» 11130"'� I 1 \ • mr 0'6001 Ome e I 6001 i 46 46 00 1001 I ,0 46„ I I ♦ 6053 1900•T53 Saab 7901 I G 711 M I 7a00��737143 I 7900 7277 ,/13 I 7760 6C`7906 I 7M0 TT 7900 7153 1 7170 V 7 11 1116, 4,• Ilti t�4--��N17 .f. ,i.I 7.no "43 I 7027 t TNI Tn T60 7.151 7446 »412 Ty ` 1 717► 7133 7W 711•1 7140 7� I'TtuvtCYV P Y 7411 71131` jus II mm 7327 PARK kai..79". 111a, I ,~. inIw!7300 7q, , SIi In Ima 79011•R".I.iol �7 PF . R 3 L _ . ��,�l.yrl 7117 . Y�w , GV �,� & 7sr 7131) Ma 1 „, 111 .0.1 �~ ''71.271 .1 73271•^I F. 641/1 73.11' I«,.- , »741Iiew 7373 ,.,, r : ~I law ( 1712,1 ETA»151 76701 790• 1 17040 Q - 1'7.77 1 73641 736, I • 7353 71121 y 71163 • 7$ :4166 705, 1 t•2 7531 i ; ,.� a 714, 72760 7611 i 7w< 11 I -Ira $ Y -• 746, 7361 to I n•o 27623 I 7641 71231 T x spa/l 740, 711$ 7710 711s I 7� »n I S 7 1•`I 7001 I 7700 Ma �1 1.1 =-7701 I ® 7357 I , I I I ` 77001 • — M1\~ , ® 7000 1 7770 7127 I 7730 7757 77x3,7770 ti ~2 1' 7127 7271 7740 7077 7777 77 - 77461274° 7787 I_ 'I� �2L1�411 5 77Q nw n 71.1 I nmol 10 . . 77°6 7773 t�1 c- �' 7781 1 7.140 7771 I 7730 7753 "LIgli 7723 I�tI• � a 7775 ' 7727 7771 1 7720 1 V ..3: 7746 I 77101 "'• • • Spring Lake 1771.- • 7761 r 7171 In,.-01=1M1 771, .-;m 7711 :!iZEIE 7700 _ C31......1 / 1-2 . 11111111111111411. 4000°. ,1 746Will 11y ti I 79016267 * 741• E.MOO wZ= 7t7ta�n, am 7 n i ,66 a 7M. I MO' 7611 W �a z 11 • t1 MS :.727 71.7 '� R i R tt 7t I •1 7ty • 7W 7147 1 ,y.l 7Y7 a 8-41 •.1 I• I • 1 4-4 MIME= 7 , ,� 7u Vicinity Map: 455-96 t• I • I 1 1 7626 ! 8265 Spring Lake Road a fH 71 7401 — I T„ 7...1 '•� ",- .: '61 _-. Su, Applicant: MV Econ Development Author k s .. vy� .-4..---.-::'• .. ar<• 'i'- T .a !;,•..=,....:.:1,- e ,.t •t 57'�" y.v r�.is.«. • .44-1-41--•t l !*; ° �'..ft+;oC' ' •r.r. ._ems:Faa,• , Surveyors Certificare COMSTOCK&DAVIS,INC. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors - 4 1446 County Road J,Mpls.,Minn. 55432, 784-9346 •-trt SURVEY OF: {a, Parts of Lots 34 & 35 SURVEY FOR: • :.••' 2 Ed Erickson " =rr. A •ud. Sub. No. 89 Park _-'ff•: 8265 Spring Lake - Mounds View =.: Mounds View, Minnesota 55112- - - Ramsey County, Minnesota k : . c� • 7 S. //ne o/ 20713S, .'s3 • • _.. 1 AA .5u6. Ala. 89 1 • 2/8.00 L_>r•� 1 .3 Z3 NI T1b. . Id t‘i y . oo C.9e - J�) NI aro.s�� 4•41 ,9�6 is,IV/ ' ,to Ice 1.0' /ted ZyS of •, b Dret/nage s 1n �� 6 MN.I A;79/fly / ,i 7 ! ''_+ •`� 25 11 4 Casv.,,rn'/;�7i J • 2/8.00 • " ' 4- _.Di•�rl .47_ 0. ti m k i e 1 1 DES CRIPT7 QN: The North 53 Fret of the West 218 fret of Lot 34, and the South 27 feet •' of the West 218 feet .:f Lot 35, all in Auditors Sub-division No. 89, :; Ramsey County, Minnesota. Subject to a drainage and utility easement '" c over the east 5 feet and subi t to other easements of record, if any. 1. _. i Dr5i 1. B.); _........ 1:3 SEP 1 E, 1 76 :, s •, SCALE: /"=SD _ __ O Etna;as iroiy /non�lrnani seCITY t%r i1iriid:.rr a ti.; • I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota./nn • � rh.+ 1n8ii gp.,t ris., 1976 3602 �� Reg. No. llate _ Job No. . . _-`, :_M: Mounds View Economic Development Authority 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View,MN 55112 (612)784-3055 Fax:(612)784-3462 August 15, 1996 Mounds View Planning Commission 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 . RE: Variance Request for 8265 Spring Lake Road: The Mounds View Economic Development Authority(EDA) is requesting a variance for property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road to recognize the existing lot width of 80 feet,which is 20 feet less than the required 100 foot minimum for corner lots. The primary reason the EDA is requesting this variance is to allow a developer to purchase the property and build a home immediately. Currently, a building permit cannot be issued for this lot unless a variance is granted allowing the reduction in required lot width. Please consider the following points when reviewing the request for this variance: . • The lot has been this width since 1939 when the lot was platted by the County and the existing house was constructed. The remainder of the block has been platted such that no vacant,unplatted land is available to add to this lot to meet the minimum width requirement. Thus, an exceptional circumstance exists in that the condition is longstanding and there is no apparent means by which it can be remedied. • The property is zoned R-1, single family residential. Construction of a single family residence is the normal expectation for use of property in this zoning district. If the variance for this property is not granted, no building permit for a new residence can be issued to this lot. Prohibiting the construction of a single family house would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. • This lot was platted years ago with the 80 foot width frontage; thus, the variance request does not result from the actions of the applicant. In addition,a lot split was granted in 1976 by the Mounds View Planning Commission with the 80 foot width. • Two properties to the north of 8265 Spring Lake Road(8287and 8289 Spring Lake Road)currently possess 90 foot width frontage on a interior lot. This is a corner lot which provides a length of 218 feet along Ardan Avenue. If this variance is not granted the lot will be unbuildable for a single family home in an R-1 zoning district. Allowing for the construction of a single family residence will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other property owners in this zoning district. 411 The variance requested is for minimum dimension necessary to alleviate the hardship,based on the existing width of the lot. f Mounds View Planning Commission . Page 2 August 15, 1996 • The purpose of the R-I district is to provide.for Iow density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly,complementary uses. Granting the variance will allow redevelopment of this lot consistent with this purpose,rather than leaving it in a vacant,unused state. • A house already exists on this property. The EDA is requesting to remove the current structure and replace it with another. We do not have current plans for the new house but do not anticipate that it will not be much larger than the existing structure. Therefore,the new structure should not impair supply of light and air or increase the amount of traffic. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, Mnds iew Economic Development Authority Jenifer Bergman • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 477-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING LOT WIDTH VARIANCE REQUEST BY THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR 8265 SPRING LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority(EDA) to allow a 20 foot reduction in the required lot width of 100 feet 8265 Spring Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is a corner lot in the R-1 district; and, WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Mounds View EDA to redevelop this property by demolishing the existing single family home and making the lot available for the construction of a new single family home; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the criteria used to evaluate variance requests; and, WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating • that the lot was platted in 1939 with a lot frontage of 80 feet, no vacant or undeveloped land is available which could be used to remedy this situation, a single-family home currently exists on the property and the use of the property for a single family home is typical of lots in the R-1 district; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist due to the size of the lot which was platted in 1939 and these circumstances were not caused by the applicant; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Municipal Code in that no building permit could be issued to the property and it could not be used for the construction of a single family home; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance would not confer special privileges on the applicant that are not enjoyed by other property owners in the same district in that the typical use of properties in the R- 1 district is for single family residences; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship, based on the existing width of the lot; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Code or to other properties in the R-1 district in that it would allow develop of the property for a single family residence which is the express purpose of this zoning district; and, Planning Commission Resolution 477-96 September 18, 1996 • Page 2 WHEREAS, the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood ° ° in that sufficient area is available within the required building setbacks to allow development of the property thus preserving light and air to the adjacent properties; no additional increase in congestion, additional risk to public safety, or decrease in property values is expected since the use of the lot for a single family residence is typical of this district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission approves the variance request of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority for a 20 foot variance from the 100 foot width requirement for 8565 Spring Lake Road. Adopted this 18th day of September, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairman • ATTEST (SEAL) Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director II Item #6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Planning Case No. 452-96 New Apostolic Church Date: September 13, 1996 The staff report on this item will be prepared on Sunday afternoon, September 15 and delivered to you. Because of the volume of staff reports for the September 18 meeting, it was not possible to complete it and include it in the regular packet delivery. We did not want to hold up the packet delivery until it was ready. I hope that this arrangement is acceptable. Item #7 110 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director, Planning Case 457-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a 20 foot variance from the 30 foot setback requirement to allow construction of a three season porch 10 feet from the rear property line. Petitioner: Ronald Gardner Location: 8480 Pleasant View Drive PIN No. 06-30-23-22-0072 Zoning/Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential . Applicable Regulations: Section 1004.01, Subd 3., requires a 30 foot rear yard setback. Section 1125.02 states the criteria for review of variances as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands,structures or buildings in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Planning Case No.457-96: 8480 Pleasant View Drive • September 18, 1996 Page 2 g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Plot Plan Hardship Statement Background: The applicant is requesting a variance to replace an existing deck with a three-season porch on his property at 8480 Pleasant View Drive. The property is located on a cul-de- . sac; therefore, the lot is an irregular shape and restricted the placement of the home at the • time of construction. The house was built in 1977, and is located 22 feet from the rear property line. The applicant has indicated in his letter that the setback requirements at the time were different. Staff has researched the Zoning Code and found that the rear setback requirement was 20 feet in 1960, and was changed to the current 30 feet in 1970. We understand that Mr. Gardner was the owner of the property when the house was built and did receive a building permit for construction of the house. The certificate of survey from 1977 shows the house in its present location. We do not know why the house was allowed to be built at 22 feet. The survey does not show the deck, and there is no building permit in the file for the deck. The applicant has submitted a hardship statement regarding his request. Mr. Gardner has stated that he does have an irregular shaped lot which requires that the house be pushed backward toward the rear property line, and makes it difficult to add any improvements on the rear of the house. He notes that many of the neighbors have three-season porches, so allowing the variance would not grant a special privilege. Without the variance, he would be deprived of an improvement which many of his neighbors enjoy. He indicates that the porch would be screened from his neighbor's property by existing trees. Analysis/Recommendation: The lot in question is pie shaped because of the cul-de-sac, and does present practical difficulties in locating the house on the lot. The property owner desires to convert the • area which has been used for a deck to a three season porch. The deck has been removed . Planning Case No. 457-96: 8480 Pleasant View Drive September 18, 1996 Page 3 but served a sliding glass door on the main level of the house. The house is split level in design and therefore the door is approximately 10-12 feet above grade. We are assuming that the property owner desires to use the existing design of the house and the location of the sliding glass door in deciding where to place the three-season porch. The applicant would need to confirm this point. The Zoning Code allows decks off the main level of the house to encroach to within two feet of the property line (Section 1104.01 Subd 5.c.) Three season porches, which are enclosed structures, are not given this same allowance and must comply with the building setback. So the change proposed by the applicant from a deck to a three season porch means different rules that apply. The three season porch would be 10 feet from the rear property line, with the bottom edge 10-12 feet above grade. The structure will be somewhat imposing. The neighbor's house is on the opposite side of the lot from where the porch would be located. The porch will be facing the open side yard on the abutting property. There are trees on this property, although they are not dense. . The applicant's property has a sizeable side yard on the east side of the house. If a new sliding glass door were cut in the east wall of the house, the three season porch could be located on the east end of the house. It could follow the existing setback of the house at 22 feet, and there is sufficient room to met the side setback of 10 feet. The trees between this property and the abutting property to the rear are denser further to the east. In addition, the porch would also have a southern exposure. (The proposed location places the porch on the north side of the house where it is shaded by the house.) Staff does not have a floor plan of the house to know if this idea is feasible. Option 1: Grant the variance based on the irregular shape of the lot and the existing location of the sliding glass door. In addition, the proposal replaces an existing improvement and three season porches are a common improvement in the neighborhood, and in this district. Option 2: Grant a variance allowing for the three season porch to be located on the east end of the house at the same rear setback as the house (22 feet), based on: • the irregular shape of the lot • the location of existing home, and the room to be served by the porch • the screening afforded by the trees along the rear property line • three season porches are a common improvement in the neighborhood and in this • zone district Planning Case No. 457-96: 8480 Pleasant View Drive • September 18, 1996 Page 4 Staff recognizes that Option 2 involves more expense for the property owner, in that they would need to relocate the sliding glass door. This option takes into account, however, that there is sufficient room on the lot for the porch at the existing allows for better buffering to the neighbor's property and continues the existing setback of the house. It also places the three season porch in an area where it will get more sun exposure rather than it being in the shadow of the house. There is some question whether the request for a variance to 10 feet from the rear property line is the minimum required to address this hardship when space is available in the side yard. More information is needed from the applicant about the floor plan of the house to know if this option is feasible. Staff Recommendation: If the floor plan of the house makes it feasible, approval of a variance allowing a three-season porch on the east side of the house at 22 feet from the rear property line rather than 10 feet as requested by the applicant. • • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION APPUCANT: 42/42/)___z , 62..AR,04/zg Phone 754,- 7SF • ADDRESS: Fgo Ret-A54,v-i' //in,' O,eivE (i c,,vds yin/. Zvi.✓ 5S ii /- Street Address, City, State, and Zip Cade Interest in Property (check appropriate box): El Owner of Property ❑ Contr.= for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase • ❑ Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final Cly action of tins request PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location $ g'0 PLEASANT y1,Ew DRIVE 41 ovvds l//G w Legal Description or Property Identification Number wi(iTE OAK EST/YTEs 7N/RD ZD. ;f# OG 30232; 0072 1 L.or JO 132./c / Legal Owner: Name/Address RodRLA L. G.A ADA/ER EL/80 PLE1151;4✓1" Uict,J DRi I/ Al©vvd.1 v/Fw AIN Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant • iZ Q Single Family Dwelling Duplex/Two Family Dwelling . _ . _ ._. . . . ._ _. _.. Q Multi-Famiiy (No. of Units ) ❑ Business/Commere.al Establishment • 0 Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Cassincation: 2' Abstract Q Torrens RE':,'UEST:, A°4-,42/:;c.4-, Ex2,5 TIN& /2X /6 ,13Z-CK W,77, Th' &ASo v5 __Rett J2 X J . ( ks?c7./}._ �9. 14-1b1 G ) (,s , .-t.zren. p_i,. ..___ *Reese note: Applicant may be responsible for acctional fees associated with the review of this request I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STA i cMEV T ARE TRUE. ( 1171..04-• (_,� -U (_, *4..111....1.aronrwwwriormwrgflreirwronrwritirwrrmmvirstwirseireirairievranirgrInneirirmwmgrairoririrwirarareireirgeoemyriwirlieirrir Signature 5200/ac.^e.minimum S200.maximum S1.000 Park Fund Dedication Fee R-1 t17 R-Z-575.ad others SZCO Oats Paid anal Use Permit R-1 tf R-2-S'S.ail others 5200 Receipt Number .Code Aopeei S75 Oevetoo.:Site Plan Review 5100/ac.-a.:tinimum 100.maximum 5500 Total Fees Paid #• 7.5 Minor 3uoaivision S150 Gate Paid Mail=Subdivision S250 pius 5250deoasit �-g��/A Receipt Number S ,›)., • C:+mo. Part Amendment 5200 'Netiand AIteramon Permit S50 pius :teacart determined by Start Additional Fee?aid Wenana Surfer Permit 510 Cate Paid Planning Sign 550 Receict Number ?UO 5350 PUO Amendment 5150 Cam at anal ac-,:on APPROVED DENIED T.;SUD Case SP- 12- 94 ?+annirt Case Na. `f 5 7- a CD I 4 Admin. ic.rurrc No. r� A •A B L 0 • • CO w N" -- -- ' • • -- ' • --NORTH COUNTY ;— .�� :49 n n n o 849 a s 3490 8499 8490 �n m w o m n N N m 8491 N 8494 95 N^ 8494 N -- N N N N 848 8485 8484 8489 8480 8481 8484 N N8490 8477 8480 8479 8471 8485 8484 8462\�`fl�►8461 8 8469 8474 8470 8465 8470 8474 8475 C:3 8470 8469 8460 848• 8460 8474 8461 8465 845 0 o 8454 8460 8463 8456 8461 84601 . 845 8456 IX 8464 • 8454 514 . E NE 8455 8450 8459 8450 8455 8440 84-41 C3 8455 8454 L•...: 8_:• / 8442 8449 L 8448 e445 8444 8444 8443 8444 1 • 8 8431 8438 8439 8438 8431 8432< 8431 84.30 8435 8434 • 84 . 8421 8430 8425cc 8429 8432 8424 8425 8434 8425 8424 I 841 8411 8421 8423 84261 8419 8400 8415 8420 8418 84198415 8414 . 840 0 8401 8419 1 8420 8409 8392 8401 1 8406 8405 8404 8392 839 8406 8407 8410 8415 J 8414 •1 n 0, 8.384 8390 4390 8389 8394 8403 8408 8409 1 8408 m m 83781 8389 8400 8379 8384 8401 .8398 ;• 1 8379 8380 8373 8386 8391 8406 .4, 1 8387 8380 - 8391 1 8388 h71 8372 8370 8387 8382 8381 IN n M 8365 l 8360 I 8380 8385 1� 1 I 8374 8368 G m 836: 8368 8350 8370 S 8371 8383 8372 8371 I 8368 8369 8360 8355 8371 3368 8.351 I 8346 8365 8354 8345 8364 8.345 8340 8.360 8.360 8359 8347 8360 8344 8.351 18346 8335 az-to 8331 8330 LL 8350 83551 83 • 8358 8341 I 8343 8342 83251 8312 8315 = 0 8335 8334 � 83458334 08339 8335 8.3.32 8315 I 8300 8303 I i L 8330 833 335 8336 8325 80 3 8333 4 83301 8333 8322 8305 1 8290 8295 8290 t 8320 8325 8316 8315 ( 8322'Z 321 8325 8300 9 8285 8280 Q 8287 ' 8280 8310 8315 8311 I 8308 Y 831 •- 8275 8270 p 8281 8270 8312 8297 8301 GROVELAND 8260 8273 8260 8.300• 8305 8298 8285 8284 8285 8290 �� I 3280 8285 PARK 4- 8255 8250 8267 , 8250 � � � 18280 8275 8281 8250 82811 , + PF m . N a ^ 8240 8261 ..8240 1 ! 1 ~ 5270 8265 8230 5141 N N `� N N N N 8230 8255 N (t 3270 8265 �• AROAN v AVE 8260 8255 8248. + o o e N a m °° 0 1 n N o 4c t f r e 8220 N N INIa mi m m 824r m m m N N N N N 0250 • 8245 N N N N N N N . N ( c'1.34 I N !N N N N N N 821 O 8211 • 9240 p G• 8233 I 8228 ••8245 8206 8.227 _•lif 8213 8201 N N N r.820C r 9210 8217 8198 8205 N. N N N 8201 tg 819:— 8177 1 8200 8191 8192 GZ 82031 N 8208 co o j 8175 I o° 1Z f� 81 ' 8180 81753160 - my cmv 8200 cNi r 04 " 814E 8155 a 8165 !m `128811• N 3148 a LAPORT ( I a 'cc C. 2 8160 ,n 7'.4 N i N ♦ 'ai p 8145 7 8117 8161 m n N CI 0 8142 003 58 ' r { r ', 8138 N I N I N r n 8135 $i N\. 0014 8156 -= e••4! PLACE- 2863 8132 3127 81251 8130 813 C) \� 8141800 _ _ • �� N O • r N d• Uf N W ^ n N n• \ 5131 N� N N N a IrN O O crO N N 812C 12 _ m m m m m N N N N N N N �D cc } M.��T �y 81 O6 N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N\� 8111 r 1 N 81• • z \\\ •' "41 • • N I N I N N m •' I 13 0 N N 8080 Q 80811 N03 N I sobb \\ N •'4) 8060 8065 8084 Of 805 8070 80711 8066 — 1 8075 8060 8059 8050 8040 8045 8046 5 �� 1/ —�' 1 I�\ 7 B-3 R-0 8030 8036 8045 I 8039 f"—. \\ 8025 8026 8028 \ tex 8020 8025 8016 •8015 8025 l 8018 \ cry 8005 I 8015 8009 I 8006 /— i \� 7980 8005 8000 ^ 7990 ha 7985 I 8004 7981 I 7990 c 6 � 1 _ Vicinity Map: 457-96 ___ I1 N 8480 Pleasant View Drive t . ,.. ArN711 4 n n..1'• D...•...1 1 . r. 1 .. / , . I So . . R910 POT LEASVIEW D 0 RIVE • . . I . . I P-P ON T VA I I • . 1 I ,0101/E W/IP ‘ / I -4z \ i •,,i:- \ ....) A'''''' • \ ' . k /4 i 0 . ,z, \ --.., /1 z-----------------,.._..___, . 1 . . . • / . .. If` /f1 1 H 1 1 I I 1 , ! i I Il II gx1,srbtai ilcu.s . 1 I 1 ! 1 ' 1 I I . i / _77 N., . / I / . i 1 / - I -Si Avcr u Rb • i 1.22 I 1 Z2-fiC.1; V i 4,i'17 I — — — 2.2-1 — _1 --) ------ 0,_. ••Z PRoPE,e7"--: Li:v.;-. • . . . . • 8480 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 ; �2•. September 8, 1996 • 'y. Ms. Pamela Sheldon • ��'Fo 199 Community Development Director e City of Mounds View 4i C o f e� 2401 Highway 10 !/1441,-,494, Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Re: Planning Case 457-96 � Thank you for informing me that my application for a variance to construct a three-season porch is tentatively scheduled for September 18. I am happy to provide the additional information requested in your September 4 letter to explain how I feel I meet the criteria in the Zoning Code. I believe a variance should be granted to allow me to construct a three- season porch in the same location as an existing deck. The following circumstances, cited in the Criteria for Approval of Variances, will impose an undue hardship, as well as practical difficulties, to me and my family in the future use and enjoyment of our home and property. a. The size and shape of my lot is quite different from other properties in the vicinity. My lot is of an irregular size which does not have the required rear property line setback. At the time my home was built in 1977, the zoning codes were different than they::are today. I was allowed to build my home, with a deck, with a shorter rear property line setback. As the • zoning codes are written today, I would have practical difficulties with construction of anything that I would do at the rear of my property, including replacing an existing deck. b. My family and I would be deprived of the rights commonly enjoyed by our neighbors--the enjoyment of a three-season porch such as many of my neighbors now enjoy. c. The lack of the required rear property line setback does not result from my own actions, but rather from the zoning codes that were in existence when I purchased the lot and built my home and the irregular shape of the lot. I chose the lot because I found • _ - _ - _ --0 ::: -.- believe that the irregular shape would at some point become a detriment to future plans. d. Granting this variance will not allow me any special privileges as many of my neighbors have three-season porches and/or large decks. e. I assure you that should this variance be granted, it would be the minimum variance allowed to construct the three-season porch. No further encroachment, other than that required, would be requested. This is not a matter of economic hardship, but rather the hardship of not being able to enjoy a portion of our home and property. • J f` Ms. Pamela Sheldon September 8, 1996 • Page Two f. I can see no reason why the approval of the variance would in any way be materially detrimental to the purpose of the zoning code or to other property in the same zone. • g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property. The porch would be barely visible to the . neighbors directly behind my property, and only then through an existing row of mature trees and across their very deep backyards, making it . almost invisible to the neighboring home owners. Since the porch is at the rear of my home, away from the street, no congestion would occur. There would be no increase in the danger of fire or public safety since • the proposed porch is well away from the neighboring homes. Having a well designed and well built porch would only add to the property values within the neighborhood, ..-not diminish or impair them. In closing, I appreciate the Planning Commission taking my request for a variance into consideration. I trust that I have provided you with clear and accurate information as to why I feel that a denial of my request would create an undue hardship, as well as a practical difficulty, in the future use and enjoyment of my home and property. Shouldl you desire further information or clarification, please feel free to contact me. • Sincerely, Ronald L. Gardner i72o�� • • Item #8 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 r, Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director'; Planning Case 458-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a variance in the building setback between a residence and a detached garage from the required six feet to 3 feet 4 inches Petitioner: Vic & Son Construction on behalf of property owners Terry and Anne Jacobson Location: 7090 Knoliwood Drive PIN No. 07-30-23-34-0012 Zoning Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential • Applicable Regulations: Section 1106.03, Subd lc., requires accessory buildings to be six feet (6') or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. Section 503.3 of the Uniform Building Code states that for the purpose of determining the required wall and opening protection, buildings on the same property shall be assumed to have a property line between them. When a new building is erected on the same property as an existing building, the distances from the assumed property line is used to determine if walls in either the existing or the new building must be fire rated. For single family homes and detached garages, walls within 3 feet of the assumed property line must be fire rated. Section 1125.02 states the criteria for review of variances as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. • c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Planning Case No. 458-96: 7090 Knollwood Drive • September 18, 1996 Page 2 • d. That granting the variance requested will notconfer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied'by this Title to owners or other lands,structures or buildings in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application • Zoning Map Diagram showing relationship of buildings (approximated from aerial photos) Construction Drawings (reduced) Diagram showing dimensions between buildings Hardship Statement Background: The applicant hired Vic & Son Construction to construct a second story addition and a rear entrance to their home to protect the back door from weather. It consists of an enclosed landing and flight of steps. There is an existing garage behind the house which was not shown on the building plans. The rear entrance has been constructed and is located within 3 feet 4 inches of the garage. Staff discovered the problem with the distance between the rear entrance and the garage when inspecting the construction. Section 1106.03 Subd. 1.c. requires accessory buildings to be at least six feet from any other building or structure on the same lot. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the rear entrance to be less than the six foot requirement of the Zoning Code. Analysis/ Recommendation: • given rear entrance was placed in the only logical location available the location of the • • Planning Case No.458-96: 7090 Knollwood Drive September 18, 1996 Page 3 • back door. The steps are directed toward the garage rather than away from the garage, and provide easier access than if the flight of steps were reversed. The distance from the corner or the rear entrance to the corner of the garage is 3 feet 4 inches. The two buildings do not actually overlap. The garage is 7 feet 8 inches from the back wall of the house (see attached diagram). The Building Code requires that if the entrance remains, either the wall of the entrance or the wall of the garage must be fire rated. Adding 5/8" sheetrock to the walls of the garage is sufficient to meet the requirement. There are three options available to address this situation. Option 1: Grant the variance based on the following, with a contingency that the walls of the garage be upgraded to meet the requirements of the Building Code for fire rating prior to final inspection of the building addition: • hardship created by the existing location of the back door • the logical travel path from the house to the garage which exists and which dictates • • the direction of the steps the climate and the desire to protect the door from severe weather • the fact that the garage and the building entrance do not overlap, and the 3 foot 4 inch dimension is only corner to corner • the distance between the garage and the house is 7 feet 8 inches which exceeds the six foot requirement Option 2: The corner of the garage closest to the rear entrance consists of a small room which has an outside entrance but is walled off from the remainder of the garage. The floor inside the room islower than the walkway between the house and the garage. If this room were removed, the distance between the two buildings would exceed the six foot requirement. Instead of covering two walls with sheetrock, as would be necessary under Option 1, the applicant would have to cover two walls with siding. Option 2 would also require raising the ground level and pouring a walkway, rerouting a vent, and altering the roof of the garage. Option 3: The third option involves removing or redesigning the back entrance so it is at least six feet from the garage. Staff Recommendation: Approve the request for a variance in the building setback between an accessory building and any other building or structure on the lot from the • required six feet to 3 feet 4 inches to allow an enclosed rear entrance to be constructed at the rear door of the residence. Include a contingency requiring the walls of the garage be upgraded to meet the requirements of the Building Code for fire rating prior to final inspection of the building addition. U8/15/96 11:0 FAX 612 784 3 362 CITY OF }i1 2002/004 1) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 1151 PLANNING APPLICATION ID APPLICANT: L SQ n O. � T Phone P"7 4Z9-7�/� ADORESS: F D 1 .- �_ - "V Street Address, City, State, and Zp Cade - Interest ;n Property (check appropriate bmf: ❑ Owner at Property 0 Contract for Deed Owner Q , Oper ,tcr, Manager j. Agreement to Purchase ,//; Other(explain) Lv.04/ %/i,1G jD 1" Daar,.nteerid ry .nt.of aecti►eary s urmrset 3n the moors,may be required before find(24acscionof ihi.r.q,,a.i . et PROP.6. TY INVOLV : Address/Genera( Localion I • I . . . .,,./ -.l1 4S 12-7J/ Legal Description or Property ldentifcalxon Number ,1,, _ ii. .. .a (�- T 1 ( o73o a.3 0.0 1d- L_Agai Owner. Name/Address er I" J < Gtfin1es'n4:2 Present Use (check appropriate box): Cl UndevelopedNacant Z Single Family OwelGng . QQ Mute-Family (No. at Units �) Q SusinessJCammaeat Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment Q Other (explain). ropy Classification: [I Abstract Q Tenons • REQUEST; . i°_ ''e ,r l- ilre to le- t . %D � 46.17X4 /, 'f=tease note: Apptieant - -- rerponsible adctboralamassed „ BMW etch thiS request I HE.E3Y DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STA T E test'ARE TRUE. -4 ” AL1" 2 -�r!/,r, Signature VaRamming 32OCJac o.ntionestri 5200.mesenum 51.000 'Pent Fund Oackadorr Fe. F7.1 to F4-2-.r. d anew s207 Dam Peid Con dional Use Power R-1 to r12-s75.air others 5200 Avoaipt Number c.Appeal ST5 CoreiamiSits Plan dao Stoolees.minimum 1130,a+ao�urr S50o Tabs F,�..Paid oO Wear Subdivision SI SO S. Minor 3Gidarrision 5253 plue mit deposit Receipt Number e; ""7-7 44- Oaar Paid Corp. Men Amendment S200 WWound nd Allam tiPenPermit 150 P deposit determined by Smit AddlMCrnd Fee Paid Penning Dm Peed . SuiSignr�J 9R Receipt Number P Ja Amendment SI 50 Oen of And action APPROVED clemeo 1c.. TAaL7 Q Odin- 7- -O/ Marring Cam Na. Lt --q L Admin.Monad No. n ) it- I : 7545 ( 7546 7545 • 7550 0 7545 7560 7555 o 2 N 11 7525 7538 w 7546x 7515Eiradgn c75 PF N 1 w n n .n n w n 0 n n n 7 750 N N 700 n N N n r CO w• NyN BRONSON DRIVE I o 0 0 0`` 0 7474 7489 a; �; I 7490 7485 N n a, < n } n n n l nl m , • I 7465 7474 7471 747 49 N N 7457 BRONSON ir. ?w P 7462 '454 — - I I 7447 • 7448 7445 1R-2 7452 7451 7456 m 7444 _ /atlIP - N N • 7415 7442 N ( st 7425 74 7435 7434 imp iilr�ii pR .,::::: Ip 7409 7440 T. V►EYI IL-i� 7415 7406 7405 7412 7408 Le :•.. IM�N •• 7405 •• 7385 7380 a 7390Cr! EI� .7381 7382 7395 7400glfr - 7 to �.. 375 F 7365 7350 7365 7360 7375 , H•o 7340 7350 • 7340 7347 7373 gi %Mown ..:.:::::::.::: 7325 �� fii�• 732G 7327 w n Sig ',..:::-:.•:.:'1.:::.::.:.:::.;:::11.5:::-.::- 11 W w n h _ w - 7337 ,., _ 7325 N N 7338 / 6t �L`:•r1 - h w 7317 .r.1 ig, �' • htil � MII o 0 0 o goaaw o•a 07310n ,;20n1 n nnn n nNNNNN7315 N „I.- J R t R-2 o N . o O `4)- o N 4 �o m O o o 0 7295 ♦ rOi N F, N O n N O O N - p 0 0 0 0 l w w w g', w w w • o. o 0 0 7288 B-1 `!+ n n 5278 5279 52 r n n n .92_1 N N N N N N N N N N N 0 '..:... .--- , 1,, ilr .18t 5272 5273 52 '111”1. 5266 5267 7280 52 k 5260 5261 7234 7237 7250 p 5254 5255 J �,t 7226 7225 7y� /' 5248)5249 -r 7200 7215 7190 ! MEI 5242 5243 1 , 1 ' 5236 5237 La_ •• 7188 7191 R-4 \ n 5230 5231 52. • E as - 7172 15 718. 51701516- 5224 5225 52. E P. o n i 7150 - el n N I, 0 0 ZME 5218 5221 n O o n g a' ,. „ 11 N N N , N N I N W � 5212 5217 5. o n " WOOD• DR 5206 5211 5 n 0v. » N , » r - o 5205 o 00 N a, N N 7100 709 co N H N 709C 16245161 5200-1315- 5. r • g n 7094 0 WOODALE DR 5148 n 7092 C n �\�,��-�\O 7070 5143 51491 5 • 7082 7095 Ni I -�jt� 70 5140 5 t 41 5 7072 7074 2 7060 513 5132 5.133 5 7069 ,0fi0 Y 7063 n N _ 0 0 r_ R-2 5133 51241;7;18 5 7054 • 7034 704 7044 ?icñ 7026 0 N N to PF n 5107 510015101 5 7006 701 ' CO N N, 1r / CO 6986 69.WI 2940 ! t 509 50950921 509 0 50861 5089 C1 50861 5085 5086 .:: 6970 697 2932 �.�1;�Ie,ix:'J�. 6960 5005079 50801 5079 50-. 50- 5 • 6952 6953 N a W 69 • 6951 507215071 5072 5071 507• 07, 5 6942 Q. 6939 N N N 694: 6945 6940 506615065 5066 5065 506; 506 ^- -- 5060150596 8 50601 5059 50.•�. j 5 6928 Nicer --016929 \ N _ 0 60 Y ' 01 N _ 0 0 50530 50545053 50 • 5 Or I SI 6900 O O 1 w N N N N N N N D N N N 5046I5045r 504615045 . • 50- E • - LEGEND Vicinity Map: 458-96 ZONING DISTRICTS - 7090 Knollwood Drive .- [700'l [100'l [100'] [100'] Ln Co • I 12C W W C75'1 125'= • garage house • [100'1 [100'1 C75'1 25 Scale: 1" = 50 feet 7090 Knollwood Drive Planning Case No. 458-96 • Approximate locations based on aerial photographs MINI min IV!Mi. M • {id 0-7rlb WIal,4. W.I. il Q 01/-fls 110 04 r{b 111 IF--'11____ 1i=11 "_n__ rte--J —' i—It n_, 11, a I , _b. z i T _ C e O y T;'- i I i :`':, 2 • • ( ) ( ,t?f O1 _ ' .137.1D MI rk______________1 i / y _ wNfJ 2 O N• i O I II O) C 2 0 aa z ,.- C2) 4 _ // 3 JL 14/1 o 1 fi.. • ( �fB I I I'"It 2 . 14%° y q° x 60 ON rwiN I U —S s V T , I IN • • . t • - - - - - - : • I gg0 I z I z I CI) = Z CO i $°BuY U i • ' . . ' •090 Knollwood. Drive 7 z,� ;3 Rear Entrance • Construction Drawings` for. 2nd Floor Addition & •—n ,r~ '''• fear Entrance - • r • --:Planning. Case No. 458-96. • • house • ////////////////y// ////////////////,/ /7////// /", „ /„. __________________ ,/ L rear entrance 4-1 at • 7'8" "' 374" 11 feet Al /////4////7/ ": �// storage • /// room 2/ garage & storage area • 2 j -i/^ ; ;/4 Planning Case No. 458-96 / 7090 Knollwood Drive Dimensions between buildings • 9:410 -6,4_661tainaLVIttiv Tuinbm 73- P _Imm. Vii4a—tme:±rtithbrit witiner logo kiit-tisvct 44oftirdideet,__.abm peu- bluisfii_tym_turaLA tuks.J.,teLbit . Th 1b,PD(2_51) AJLLLb 414 -04 1bCrb aL atino I. • Item #9 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 • Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 457-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to extend the current concrete driveway to 1 foot of the side property line. Petitioner: John R. Manning Location: 7755 Spring Lake Road PIN No. 06-30-23-33-0008 Zoning/Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: • Section 1004.01, Subd 4., requires a 5 foot setback from any lot line. This section of the Code states that a temporary parking surfaces may be within 5 feet (5') but not less than 1 foot (1') from any lot line with permission from the adjacent property owner. Section 1121.09, Subd. 7, defines temporary surfacing of off-street parking as brick or concrete pavers, gravel construction or asphalt construction. It states that no concrete surfacing shall be allowed for temporary surfaces. Section 1125.02 states the criteria for review of variances as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands,structures or buildings in the same • district. Planning Case No. 459-96: 7755 Spring Lake Road • September 18, 1996 Page 2 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Plot Plan Hardship Statement Background: The applicant is requesting a variance to extend his concrete driveway within 1 foot of the side property line. He lists several reasons why he feels a variance is appropriate in his hardship statement. The area between his existing driveway and the property line is too shaded to grow grass because of pine trees on his neighbor's property. The area is an eyesore and requires some kind of surfacing. His property fronts on Spring Lake Road where parking is prohibited. He wants to expand the existing driveway to provide parking for guests. Guest parking has been a continual problem and requires ferrying people from parking elsewhere in the neighborhood or from thepark. The pi.- -- •• •- . •'. - property provide a buffer. According to the plot plan provided by the applicant, the neighbor's house is 80 feet from the side property line. Staff requested Mr. Manning to contact his neighbor as to whether they would give permission for a parking area within one foot of the property line. Mr. Manning was not able to get written permission. Therefore his request is two-fold: • to reduce the setback from property lines to parking areas regardless of whether the neighbor gives written permission • to allow the surfacing to be concrete rather than temporary material • Planning Case No.459-96: 7755 Spring Lake Road September 18, 1996 Page 3° Analysis/ Recommendation: The strict application of the Zoning Code(Section 1121.09, Subd. 7)would only allow the expansion of a parking area on Mr..Manning's property to within one foot of the side property line if: • the surfacing were temporary(brick or concrete pavers, asphalt construction or gravel construction), and • his neighbor gives written permission When parking areas are placed within one foot of a property line, there is very little ability to provide buffering between the parking area and the neighbor. The requirement to obtain written permission from the neighboring property owner for recognizes that parking areas that close may have an impact on the neighbor. Granting this variance would run counter to that intent. Mr. Manning is in a somewhat difficult situation. His neighbor is unwilling to provide • written permission. The neighbor's pine trees are shading the area where Mr. Manning wants to put the parking area, making it difficult to keep the lawn growing there. The neighbor's house is 80 feet from the side property line. Mr. Manning does have a hardship different from many of the residential areas in Mounds View in that parking is prohibited at all times on the street fronting his property. He does not have sufficient room in his current driveway for guest parking. Mr. Manning desires to use concrete since his existing driveway in the area which would be extended is also concrete. The portion of the driveway which crosses Spring Lake Road right-of-way is asphalt (see plot plan). Variance Criteria (1125.02 Sub. 2) The applicant has provided a letter addressing each of the criteria for granting variances. In summary, the variance procedure is available to address situations where the normal application of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Allowing Mr. Manning to expand his parking area would address the hardship created by the parking restrictions on Spring Lake Road and the problems caused by the area along his side property line being shaded. Staff favors allowing an expanded parking area between the front property line and the front face of the house. This area is approximately 600 square feet, which would allow at least three additional cars to be parked on the property. The existing driveway and the 600 square foot area would allow approximately nine cars to be parked on the property. Staff feels . providing for parking this number of cars is sufficient to address the hardship. In addition, staff feels the surfacing should be limited to the materials classified as temporary in the Planning Case No. 459-96: 7755 Spring Lake Road • September 18, 1996 Page 4 Zoning Code. The use of concrete would grant Mr. Manning a special privilege that is denied to other property owners in this district. It is not necessary to use concrete to relieve the hardship. Limiting the materials to those classified as temporary may alleviate the neighbor's concerns. This area could be surfaced with pavers, asphalt, or gravel. Staff recommends that the area along the house not be used as a parking area due to its width, and that it be surfaced in gravel to allow for drainage away from the house and to eliminate the uphill fight to get the lawn to grow. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the request to expand the parking lot in the area between the front property line (Spring Lake Road right-of-way line) and the front face of the house to within one foot of the side property line, using materials classified as temporary in the Zoning Code. Allow gravel surfacing in the area along the south side of the house to within one foot of the side property line, restrict its use to other than a parking area. Deny the request to use concrete. • 110 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION . -.' ... APPLICANT: ,; • .4 Phone 75L-'9O78 • ADORESS[77.5-5-S i141 11t A.C.Pettd 11x1 all tr IS Vi e�r �ti X S 110_ Street Address,-City, State, and Zp Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box): l Owner of Property \. ❑ Contra for Deed Owner Q Lessee, Operator, Manager Q Agreement to Purchase • Q Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicants interest to the property may be required before anal City action of this request . PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location Legal Description or Property Identification Number A,o f 24c5e e-0761-,"e30 °�3 — 3�-� ri 7---id/lc? 3tl A7art�g e 3.3, 9'gt6j ty 1- -,-e R /J - hN •10 "4+•al s•1PQntsrye- - Legal Owner: Name/address -z-re A n R- Cyt 4 no/n 5 r,n5 �a ke Ro 4.cii Mori reds v,'ta> Milt 5-S1/ Present Use (check appropriate box): 3 Q UndevelaaedNacant - • Single Family Dwelling Q Duplex/Two Family Dwelling - ..-.. -_ _,.-__.. ----- ------.'—'-- Q Multi-Family (No. of Units ) Q Business/Commercial Establishment Q Industrial Establishment Q Other (explain) Property Cassi cation: [ Abstract g. Tarrens " • REQUEST: TF,.-f- tear ;once_ �e y ert =,(1 . --- e.a n u 4e a - - 7178 d;n e' .4.01- WBEImmmeliSAer v i�r`m.--ar�SL7lliEi - ZTT.=�..7.'_i - - ' ;-f *Pease note: App,' may be responsible for accitional fees associated with the r- iew of this request. I HEREBY.DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT aFE TRUE. _ I Signa* = r ..#1 • Sewn" - 5200/acre.minimum S2CO.maximtun 51.000 Paris Fund Dedication Fee R-1 to R-2.57ail others=CO Dana Paid - .anal Use Permit R-1 ts P-2-575 ail others 5200 Receipt Number Code Appeal 575 Oeveico.iSite?tan Review 5100/acre.minimum 100.maximum Mia Tatal Fees Paid 73 Minor Suoorvision 5150 Oats Paid Major SuodSC50 pias 5250 Receipt `9 1„_ deposit Pscot Number 5'a g . Camp. Man Amendment 5200 Wetland Alteration Psrmrt S50 plus depose determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetland Surfer Permit 510 Oars Paid Planning Sign SSO Receipt Number PUO 5350 PUO Amendment 5150 Data at Inal ac^„pn p APPROVES C DENIED 77TASL-777 96/ Oate J " - Panning Case No. q 5 Q `I /,, �/ Admin.Ac=unt No. h ''er • .17; • ,. ,,,,....4...7_,-..-..a.-2 r-7-•••• ` --. 8131 r in '. ni N7.4 mN IS o Ln r. : n 7i r (N1N1 N 1N1N1NtN ( N INI (N :418.12(•,2k...-:.•-_,-.... :...4.1.- ______ _ 111 \\ 8111• i1- N• 111 ,• Nit .:. Iiiiii: ON m m 8080 + I m)N n, N N8088 '.-Z \\\ r a -� \ • N 8060 8065 8084 8070 8071 8066 8071 5 1 8040 8046 8075 8060 8059 I 8050 8055 ! ! \ ' )'L' i Bo3o 80'5 I 8045 8040 Booz Bas ) \ '7 I 8026 -- /30286036 9 8032 8033 n \ • 8020 5023 8016 8015 8025 8018 8011 a_ I I \\ II; t1 8 8016 8009 8006 / I ( I 79901q 7985 8004 7981 7990 7981 CC V ) I ! 798d 7975 7970 7979 1 7980 7989 I • �" a I �y0 r • 7960 O 7959 I 7970 7965 ! 7960 7965 44 o 79 7955 ( 7958 7949 I 7954 7959 141 I I cr o N N 7834 7933 7950 7940 7945 a i 7932 �� 7935 F� 4 `fit-.4o n ar �, 1 N O 1O N ';4-11,-.117g00, 7901 �� N I N �N .-.WAX. — .1.- 7897 Er H HILLYIEYV 1782078257850 7587 1 aa •si 7881 N + ;1r 7879 "" 7835 N _ erl �� m 8-2 7876 E 7885 781 _, 781517870 7855 tri 7877 C7 780 7860 7851 7/350 7821 ,". 7870 N 0 0 ; ;flail 1:77882011 �' •,B� 7863 7850 7541 N :.. •7801 71351 �� • :•.7• .}_:-; 7110.1111: 7791 3R-4750 4::_#:-•+.••::•:.-:.:.. 783. °� '__:: ::. : : 7781 7. :I >.. - 4. _ - T . _ .••= �'�� •�= ���: � 7TH �,7759 7770 B-Z �k :• -..._.- == -- • 7765 7787 dj11#4k‘ �6`°y ..... - ... _ t SNE 7729 R-3 ,1`� �� o 4. -.. s 77� R-2 7801 /- .� ....g7 - V - .s = 7715 0 ;3 \ q.• _ •:: •:-- N 771. m ::::' '"77091771• 7711 N .• __--- -- m r 76921 2I . _=..."... m 7566 7.: m 17� 7685 a 78901 PUO a 8-3 I 7 P. 7680 Q 7669 I 7670 7663 ix 768 La N it 011 Io m o c I O 7670 7665 I 7660 %hi n nn n 7' 7655 7666 5747 7• 7653 a I• 7' • 7633 I 7664 7629 I 7534 7635 I N - 11 762 7629 I 7620 7625 I 7620 Ita T I 76141 7627 7600 7619 7600 7601 ) IZ 671 7604 SILVER VIEW 7581 :. 7585 7594 7575 I a/ In 7581 7584 c 7579 I 7588 PARK f 7555 7564 7588 o 7565 75, a 7555 N ° ms N— N ! ' 7555 ► 758"3 7555 I 7572 R—z •- :, I 7545 7 CM 7545 75 •O 7545 7�5 7550 4 c N n i m o 7560 7550 to • n ^/mos I I 7515 7538 W =2 7515 754N N ! _ ,x _ a _ . '7545 7540 PF • no S n n o ^ o"' n ^ I O O 0 I O 7507 H I N 17500 m I m I m I m IN ry N N n n n g N N N N 7 'A 2 * - I BRONSON .DRIVE — - N-N „i ta I n A, c eV n n 7474 7489 I o I I 7490 7485 I m 75o•f - a „ o n 1 O O • N�N ................ I 0 7465 7474 7495 N m m ::: 7474 7471 `� r �7457 BRONSON� :..,....._...........: _ • P 7462 7454 9RONSON _ __ - -- I I7447 + 7448 7445 R-1 74 745117456/ acro• oo 174,4 --..•. - 52 , N N ._. ... • � 4:1 .1.::::::::Z:f 1 o • 7425 7430 7435 , 7434 W 7415 1 7442 Tit 42 ^ ^ n c e'. : 1 cc _ _ -ti OR. _v 11 a7409 117415 I 7408 7405 I 74127405 j Vicinity Map: 459-96 I • 7755 Spring Lake Road '1 ! ' 7385 I 7380 7381 I77395 (382 n Annlicant: .Tnhn 17 M'n,,4TTM1 i z O al 2. 0 37 13 '17 _ _ _ _ n" rn x __ }__ a a z \i% - - b az rn c - x - -----Ir------ °g% EXISTING CONCRETE DANE _- = D��^_ 1 1 A6-:::::-:.::;,g-1.:::: CI ti Al0 3:1 ::,:., , k . .. ......... n�ntarrratr�crar..............:::.::::::. IL 0 $OPINE TREES Fii • \ \ 1. z orn rn z 8 iz O nib mn yy 13 M 1 03 II 0 X Q 33 I oz Cm CD X oO .37-i Il01,::,S,i..q.I.::.,:fili q: hltill l�ltrlilil I fili'1!l':111?'� .0/1 x;44 ,p Z : 291 a i'- * •" s • .;iCX13I3 MOUSE aaruiti,D 0 , OSBORNE ROAD September 4, 1996 City of Moundsview Re: 7755 Spring Lake Road Zoning Code Varience Request The code that limits concrete paving to within 5 feet of a property line seems to be restrictive for these unusual circumstances: 1. A line of 50 Pine, trees on the rear of the adjacent property is an on going problem. This long line of trees dwarf the property line, and hang over a fence, shading the entire South side of 7755 Spring Lake Road. Maintainance on this side is never ending due to the long needles they produce and the weeds that they encourage. Grass has been planted in this area numerous times but fails to grow because of the pine needles and continual shade. The area has been taken over by unmaintained weed growth on the neighboring side along the fence. 2. The code seems more applicable to properties adjacent (side-by-side) each other rather than where a side property line meets a rear property line. 3. The Pine trees along the property line have reached a mature state with an average height of .20 to 30 feet tall. The trees have • been causing the above listed problems for many years. 4. The boulivard in front of 7755 Spring Lake Road has been designated as a No Parking Zone and has been a continual parking problem when guests visit. Having 2 additional parking spaces on the driveway at 7755 Spring Lake Road will make it convenient and safe for guest vehicles. 5. An off set of 1 foot from the property line would make this project practicle and also clean up the property which has been an eyesore for many years. 6. This additional parking area has been suggested by other home owners living along the portion of Spring Lake Road where the No Parking Zone has been designated. 7. Concrete pavement, to match the exsisting driveway, will only improve the property along this line and will relieve an ongoing parking problem. Sincerly, • John Manning • w- y, : , 4-„,.: _I- . i. • ', I, ^ll •► �a ummic . . p#" .rte i.�.rcn i• i. - -_ - Iii i , . rilL""r--1-.11::„isir- • • * A I-c . • ill i►:' ,i :maypike •' r.. I`.r • ..r:.. -".11. 0 fes. + I 111, 1 . i _ _ I I' C • .1, 1."-.4.-.. ...,..L,_ I. rt... .• • K� ,Stes^.�+ . �� ^Y 1"rK....Z.1-.':;;.,•- -. "Y- f• } Y' �.. ".. { 'tom - �r*,W Y ›''''t.'.,•:•-: •-•k r �.� ♦ _s -t.::'&,••,•••;.):, { i"+ a•• • - _ • ....., .._=r , - ate'+t ,,'a�4.,-..... . j y.."���` 1" ' • .,f✓ • • .=••tilN — t i •' . ; t Vit,{ • E '. $i i,, ; -•- --_ 1 _- __ w t \. . .,-„.„-- --.--___.„_,..,,..4.—t..:--,--..7.',:i4kisl.i.” 4. , 0 __ .. ... •••._. _ ... ,:,,, , -::-.__- . �~1v I • estY� t a tF. ._ _„ . ,.. Y • • 3 ' 11_ :. i. ,.It -' i •i F r • Rt: •; tr ' 2 . • 1 I����•j�.� ,�� M J � .� R a�-r J•i'.•T '� .ley-' �• •1 �' JS- •"tr W an. r ..<+'4! �1!'N-� . _. C .+. -.sem _ • • • .,r _..-.-,•-.4:).•-' 2.•_-...•;.•:':.. �.• J .-• am_+. • Item #10 SII PLANNING COMMISSION • MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Setbacks for Parking Lots for Non-Residential Uses Planning Case No. SP-008-96 Date: September 11, 1996 Meeting on September 18, 1996 Issue Mr. Danny D. Moon, a property owner in Mounds View, has requested the the Zoning Code be amended to require a minimum 15 foot setback between parking lots and property lines for churches and any commercial uses, when these uses are adjacent to residential uses (see attached letter). Recommendation • Discuss the proposal presented in this staff report and in the draft of Ordinance 590 which would amend the Mounds View Zoning Code, Title 1100, Sections 1101.01, 1104.01, 1106.04, 1121.09, 1121.11, and 1123.02 Relating to Setbacks for Parking Lots, Driveways, and Principal and Accessory Buildings, and the Continued Use of Non-Conforming Parking Lots. Make a recommendation to City Council no later than October 9, 1996 for at least that portion of the Code revision requested by Mr. Moon, i.e. increase in setbacks from five feet to fifteen feet for parking lots fzor pure hes and commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. Background/Analysis 60-Day Rule: Mr. Moon's request was submitted after the August 7th Planning Commission meeting. (The letter is not dated.) Staff has asked the City Attorney whether the 60-day rule applies to requests from property owners to change the text of the Zoning Code. His response was that it is not clear nor has it been litigated. In order to be prudent, we should proceed as if the 60-day rule does apply. The first 60 day period would expire on October 5; an extension for an additional 60 days would expire on December 4. In order for staff to have this item before City ' Council for action prior to December 4, the Planning Commission needs to forward its • recommendation to City Council no later than October 9. This schedule allows discussion of this item by the Planning Commission at this meeting (September 18), and at your meetings in October (2nd and 9th). The Planning Commission could separate that portion of the ordinance Mounds View Planning Commission • Page 2 September 11, 1996 revision related to Mr. Moon's request, and forward your recommendation on it to City Council while continuing your review of the remainder, if the Commission felt it needed more time. Origin of Issue: It is staff s understanding that this request was prompted by Mr. Moon's concern about the parking lot proposed for the New Apostolic Church at 3025 County Road H. The original proposal for the New Apostolic Church used the five foot setback for parking lots allowed by the Zoning Code. Neighboring property owners objected that this distance was too narrow, and did not provide sufficient buffering between the parking lot and adjacent homes. They did not view parking lots as being a typical use in a single family residential district. The Zoning Code does require special review of churches in residential districts and the approval of a conditional use permit. This process allows for setbacks to be increased if needed for buffering. Mr. Moon is requesting that the setback stated in the Code for parking lots for churches and commercial uses be increased when the parking lot is adjacent to residences. Specific Proposal: Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission consider Mr. Moon's request, some additional amendments concerning setbacks of parking lots and accessory buildings, and some clean-up items. These are: • increasing setbacks for parking lots in residential districts, and from front property lines • in the R-3, R-4, R-O districts The current Code allows a five foot setback from property lines for parking lots in all districts, except it requires parking lots in the B-1 through B-4 and I-1 districts to be setback the same distance as buildings from the front property line. The proposal is to require the following (see Section 3, Subd. 4.c. on page 3 of the attached ordinance): In R-1 and R-2: parking areas for residential uses to be setback 5 feet, with allowance to go to one foot for temporary parking areas (same as now) parking lots for non-residential uses (such as churches, schools, community centers, day care centers) to be setback 15 feet if on sites having two acres or less; and 30 feet if on sites having more than two acres (increase from five feet) In R-3, R-4, R-5: front =30 feet side, rear =20 feet if abutting residential districts = 10 feet if abutting non-residential districts (increase from five feet) In B-1 through B-5 front = 30 feet (same as now) • Mounds View Planning Commission Page 3 September 11, 1996 side, rear = 20 feet if abutting residential districts = 10 feet if abutting non-residential districts (increase from five feet) In I-1 front = 30 feet (decrease from 40 feet) side, rear =20 feet if abutting residential districts = 10 feet if abutting non-residential districts (increase from five feet) • establishing a minimum lot size for non-residential uses in residential districts The current Code allows for a number of non-residential uses in the residential districts with approval of a conditional use permit. There is no specific minimum lot size for these uses, however, and therefore the minimum lot size for the district in general is used. Staff is recommending that a minimum lot size of at least one acre be established. A survey of the existing churches in Mounds View shows the smallest site in use is 1.5 acres. An alternative way of dealing with this issue is to set a maximum for the amount of impervious coverage on a site (building and paving). • • clarifying the provision regarding front yard setbacks in the R-1 and R-2 district where the existing setbacks in the same block differ from the minimum required The current Code requires that the required setback be adjusted if existing residences in the same block are at a different distance than the minimum setback. The present language makes this provision difficult to administer. Staff is suggesting that it be clarified that we are to use the residences for the entire block on the same side of the street, and that the minimum distance for any one residence be used as the minimum required. Otherwise, if an"average" is used, the question must be asked why the new structure must •- - •. • •• . - • -. - . • - • - • - s • - in the same block. See Section 2, item a. at the top of Page 2, in the attached ordinance. • prohibiting accessory buildings in front of principal building • clarifying placement of accessory buildings in side yards which abut streets The current Code would allow an accessory building to be placed in the front yard, or on corner lots, in both the front and side yard to within five feet of the property line. Our practice, however, is to prohibit accessory buildings between the principal building and the front property line. We also require accessory buildings to use the same setback • requirement as the principal building when a side yard abuts a street. Mounds View Planning Commission Page 4 September 11, 1996 Staff is suggesting that the Code be clarified to match our practice (see Section 3, Subd. 4.a. on page 2 of the attached ordinance). • requiring encroachment permit for driveways and parking areas in easements A recent case involving a lot split raised the question whether or not driveways and parking areas can be located in easements. Our Code is silent on this issue. The City needs to protect its ability to use these easements, and to put the property owner on notice that if improvements must be removed, for example, to work on utility lines, the property owner is obligated to repair or replace the improvements. Staff is suggesting that a requirement for approval of an encroachment permit be added if driveways or parking areas would encroach into easements (see Section 3, Subd. 4.b. and c. on page 2-3 of the attached ordinance). • clarifying the allowance for "temporary parking area"within 1 foot of property lines The proposal would add a cross-reference to the section of the Code where surfacing for temporary parking areas is defined, so it is clear what type of surfacing can be used. It • would also require that permission from the adjacent property owner be provided on a form acceptable to the City. Staff would note that we are uncomfortable with this provision and would suggest the Planning Commission revisit it. Is the allowance for a temporary parking area revocable? What if the neighboring property is sold, and the new owner objects to the temporary parking area? If there is no way to remove them, why are they considered temporary? Our preference would be to hold the line on the setback requirement for parking areas at five feet. The Planning Commission may have more history on this issue, however, and the need for cleaning up areas used for parking. • adding provisions to deal with non-conforming parking lots Staff recognizes that the changes in the setback requirements for parking lots may create situations where existing parking lots become non-conforming. We are suggesting that non-conforming parking lots be allowed to remain, to be resurfaced and restriped, and to have potholes and curbing repaired. If the parking surface is removed to the subgrade, however, the parking lot would have to be brought into conformance with setback requirements. . Mounds View Planning Commission Page 5 September 11, 1996 Information from Other Cities: In the time since your last meeting, staff has have been able to gather some information on how other cities handle setbacks for parking lots. This information is summarized in the chart below. City Minimum Setback for Parking Minimum to Residential Uses* Minimum Lot Size or Lots Coverage Limit Arden Hills unknown* 75'from adjacent residential lot Maplewood 15'from street ROW 20'if adjacent property is used or 5' from property lines* shown in land use plan for residential use New Brighton 30'front yard no change FAR for principal structure other 30'from street ROW than residence is .3 5'side or rear yard* (total sq. ft. in building cannot exceed 30%of sq. ft. in lot Roseville 30'front yard 30'if adjacent lot in residential • 5'side or rear yard in R-1,R-2, district(proposed) R-3,R-3A,R-4,R-5 15'side or rear in R-6,R-7 Shoreview 20'from street ROW 20'if adjacent property is in 5'side or rear yard* residential district Mounds View 5'from street ROW except in no change B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4 =30' I-1 =40' 5'side or rear yard * setback for parking lots changes when abutting residential uses The chart shows that, with the exception of New Brighton and Mounds View, the cities surveyed increase the required side and rear setbacks to parking lots for nonresidential uses abutting residential properties. The typical amount is between 20 and 30 feet. Arden Hills is as much as 75 feet. (It should be noted that the requirement shown for Roseville is proposed. They are considering an ordinance amendment to increase the requirement for parking lot setbacks for churches for much the same reason as Mounds View.) Field Conditions: Staff has not had an opportunity to research field conditions in Mounds View to determine the impact of the proposed ordinance changes on existing churches, schools and • businesses. We are hoping to do so before your meeting on September 18, and will report at that time. Mounds View Planning Commission • Page 6 September 11, 1996 cc: Mr. Danny D. Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive,Mounds View MN 55112; FAX: 783-1853 Abiding Savior Lutheran Church, 8211 Red Oak Drive NE,Mounds View MN 55112 Cross of Glory Lutheran Church,5472 Adams Street,Mounds View MN 55112 Messiah Lutheran,2848 County Road H2,Mounds View MN 55112 Church Upon the Rock,7901 Red Oak Drive NE,Mounds View MN 55112 Sunrise United Methodist Church,7687 Long Lake Road,Mounds View MN 55112 Pinewood Elementary School,5500 Quincy Street,Mounds View MN 55112 Edgewood Middle School,5100 N. Edgewood Drive,Mounds View MN 55112 Attachments: Letter from Mr. Danny D. Moon Proposed Ordinance(Revised) Proposed Resolution Recommending of Approval S • • To: Pam Sheldon Community Development Director City of Mounds view • From: Danny D, Moon 6929 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 - I would like to propose a change in the building code to setback of parking lots for churches or any commercial property adjacent to residential property be changed from 5 feet to 15 feet so green space is not interrupted on residential properties. This would allow for landscaping to obtain proper growth, such as pine trees, etc. and for room to plow snow. Thank- , u, 7 trdzmiy/61 itz9-47 SDanny D. Moon • 1111 ORDINANCE NO. 590 (Draft#2) • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SETBACKS FOR PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS,AND PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES LISTED AS CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; THE CONTINUED USE OF NONCONFORMING PARKING LOTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND AMENDING TITLE 1100, SECTIONS 1102.01, 1104.01, 1104.02, 1106.04, 1121.09, 1121.11, AND 1123. 02 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1102.01 is hereby amended to add a new Subd. 88. "Principal Building" as stated below, and the subsequent subdivisions in this section are to be renumbered accordingly. Subd. 88. Principal Building: The main or primary building containing the principal use of a property as distinguished from an accessory building. • Section 2. Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. Is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Setbacks for Principal Buildings: The setback distances listed in the table below apply to principal buildings, except as otherwise provided for conditional uses in specific zoning districts. All setback distances shown, as listed in the table below, shall be measured from the appropriate lot line. The lettered footnotes correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3. a., b., c., and d. -.r Yard District' Minimum Minimum When Abuts Minimum When Abuts Residential Residential R-1 30 a. lO b. 30 R-2 30 a. 10 b. 30 R-3 30 10 c. 20 c. 30 40 R-4 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50 R_5 --As required under Chapter 1110.05 of this Title-- R-O 30 20 c. 20 c. 30 50 B-1 30d- 10c. 20c. 20 30 • B-2 30 d- 10 c. 20 c. 20 30 'Lettered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.01 Subd. 3.A.,b.,c.,and d. Ordinance No. 590 Draft#2 • Page 2 B-3 30 d 10 c. 20 c. 20 40 B-4 30 d- 10 c. 30 30 40 I-1 40 d- 20 c. 40 40 40 PUD --As required under Chapter 1120 of this Title-- a. Where adjacent-structures principal buildings on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard setback shall be ••' .. _ • .• . . • structures-. the minimum setback in existence for any one lot. If there is only un . ••. / . , . . . .. - . . •• . . 19 - •• - • I • .• • - •• • •••• • • In no case shall the front yard be less than thirty feet (30'). b. Not less than thirty feet (30') from the lot line if lot is on corner. , 99 The side setback may be reduced to five feet (5') between an interior side lot line and that side of a principal building which is constructed as a garage. c. Not less than thirty feet (30') from lot line if lot is on corner. d. Vehiclele:parking or loading docks shall not be-located within the minimum requited • Section 3. Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Is hereby amended to read as follows: from any lot line, except where said driveway provides access to a public st,:et. The combined width of tempo 1: . , •. ••. • . • thirty five Subd. 4. Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas a. Accessory Buildings (detached from a principal building): (1) R-1 and R-2: al front: no accessory building shall be located between the front line of the principal building and the front lot line (b) side: five feet (5') except the minimum setback shall be 30' from any lot line abutting a public street LO rear: five feet (5') 1110 Ordinance No. 590 Draft #2 . Page 3 al All other districts: (a) front lot line, and any lot line abutting a public street: same as minimum setback for principal building (b) side and rear lot lines (not abutting a public street): five feet (5') b. Driveways: Driveway surfaces shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5') from all lot lines, except driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. c. Parking Areas: (1)- R-1 and R-2: (a) residential uses: five feet (5'), except temporary parking areas surfaced with either • gravel or asphalt shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates his/her permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a temporary . parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. The combined width of parking and driveway surfaces shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93) Surfacing of temporary parking areas shall be in accordance with Section 1121.09 Subd. 7. (b) non-residential uses, allowed by conditional use permit: for sites having two (2 ) acres or less, the minimum setback for parking areas on the site having non-residential uses shall be fifteen feet (15'); for sites having more than two (2) acres, the minimum setback shall be thirty feet (30'). Parking areas in existence as , and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 Subd. 1(b). (2) All other districts: (a) from front lot lines, and lot lines abutting public streets: thirty feet (30') (b) from side and rear lot lines, when abutting properties are in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 districts: twenty feet (20') from side and rear lot lines, not abutting properties in the R-1, R-2, • R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts: ten feet (10') Ordinance No. 590 • Draft #2 Page 4 Section 4. Section 1104.02 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Lot Areas Dimensions: Lot dimensions width and area shall not be less than the following: a. Width (1) R-1 interior lot 75 feet (2) R-1 corner lot, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-O 100 feet b. Square Feet Minimum Lot Area (1) Computations for lot area shall not include land beyond a depth of one hundred fifty feet (150') on lots having less than one hundred foot (100') frontage. (2) Lots greater than one hundred foot (100') frontage may use depths not exceeding one and one-half(1-1/2) times the frontage in computing lot area. (3) Minimum lot size area requirement shall be as stated in the table below. The lot area per dwelling unit requirements for townhouses, condominiums, planned unit developments and multiple family • developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area in the project and as controlled by an individual and/or joint ownership: • Ordinance No. 590 Draft#2 • Page 5 District/Type of Lot2 Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area (in square feet) Per Dwelling Unit(3) (in square feet) R-1 Interior 11,000 11,000 R-1 Corner Lot 12,500 12,500 R-1,R-2,R-3,R-4,R-5 43,560(1 acre) Non-residential uses listed as conditional uses,except for governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community R-2,R-3 -12,500 for lot developed with single- 12,500 Duplexes,Townhouses family detached dwelling; - 12,500 for each half of divided lot developed with two-family dwelling; -25,000 for undivided lot developed with two-family dwelling • RR=4 single family detached: 11,000 Townhouses, Condominiums, two-family: 6,250 Planned Unit Developments, townhouse: 6,500 Multiple Family(4) multiple family: 2,500 I-1 43,560 (1 acre) B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4 no minimum;must allow for setbacks and parking requirements to be met ... r*MI/INN v1••nl.)a•J lq -••• ••f 21•D_*1.1 (14 R-1 collier lot, R-2, R-3 12,500 square fed (4) Lot area per dwelling unit. (The lot area per tlwdliiig uut p 1 •. - . .. . • • • a • • 1 the project and-as cont oiled by an individ ... (b) Two-family • •. - - (c) Townhouse 6,500 square feet (d) Multiple-Family 2,500 square fed • 2 Numbered footnotes in this table correspond to Section 1104.02 Subd. 2.b.(3)and(4). Ordinance No. 590 Draft #2 . Page 6 (5)(4) Usable Open Space: Each multiple-family dwelling site shall contain at least six hundred twenty five (625) square feet of usable open space as defined by subdivision 1102.02(109) of this Code for each dwelling unit contained therein. Section 5. Section 1106.04 Subd 1. are hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary,junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Minimum lot area shall be as stated in Section 1104.02 Subd. 2.b.(3). c-d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting • residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. ±e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. e-f. The provisions of subdivision Section 1125.01(11 Subd. 1.e. of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. • Section 6. Section 1121.09 Subd. 11 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses (in developments of six units or less), all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot,, .'• • • • • • • than five feet (5') to ally lvt line. The location of this curb barrier shall comply with the setback requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. Section 7. Section 1121.11 Subd. 3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Accessory off-street parking • - •- - • • shall comply with the required minimum setbacks as stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Section 8. Section 1123.02 Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. Continuance of Use: • (a) General: Any structure or use lawfully existing prior to a revision to this Code or a change in a zoning district designation which makes the Ordinance No. 590 Draft#2 Page 7 structure or use nonconforming shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Parking Areas for Non-Residential Uses, Allowed by Conditional Use Permit, in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 Districts: Parking areas in existence as of , and having setbacks which are non-conforming with respect to setback requirements stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4, may continue in use and may be resurfaced and restriped, and potholes and curbing may be repaired. Parking lots or portions of parking lots which are reconstructed by the removal of the parking surface to the subgrade shall be brought into conformance with the setback requirements in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. Jerry Linke, Mayor • ATTEST: Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney • • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.474-96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO.590 AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, TITLE 1100,SECTIONS 1102.01, 1104.01, 1104.02, 1106.04, 1121.09, 1121.11,AND 1123.02 RELATING TO SETBACKS FOR PARKING LOTS,DRIVEWAYS, AND PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL USES LISTED AS CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND THE CONTINUED USE OF NON-CONFORMING PARKING LOTS FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USES IN THE R-1,R-2,R-3,R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code sets forth provisions concerning setbacks for driveways,parking areas, and principal and accessory buildings; and, WHEREAS, it is in the community interest to assure that parking areas associated with larger scale uses such as multifamily residential, community facilities, commercial and industrial developments do not have an adverse visual and aesthetic impact on adjacent residential properties; and, WHEREAS, additional buffering is needed between parking lots associated with multifamily residential, business and industrial uses and adjacent'residential uses • WHEREAS, residential districts allow for certain non-residential uses such as schools, community centers, and churches as conditional uses, and additional buffering is needed between the parking lots associated with these uses and adjacent residential uses; and, WHEREAS, certain provisions in the Zoning Code related to setbacks for driveways,parking areas, principal and accessory buildings are in need of clarification; and, WHEREAS, with the adoption of increased setbacks for parking lots abutting residential properties, it is advisable to address the continued use of existing parking lots which do not conform to the revised setback requirements, and the ability to repair and resurface them. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends approval of Ordinance No. 590, an ordinance amending Title 1100, entitled"Zoning Code,"of the Mounds View Munici -Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of September, 1996. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson A 1-1'EST: (SEAL) • Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Item #11 LA P NNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director \!� Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Planning Case No. SP-001-96 Date: September 12, 1996 Meeting of September 18, 1996 Issue The City Council has enacted a 180-day moratorium on new used, development or construction of commercial wireless telecommunication towers and antennas within the City of Mounds View. This action allows the City approximately six months in which to develop regulations for these facilities. The Planning Commission conducted its initial discussion session on this issue on •. August 21 and directed staff to prepare a list of questions which need to be answered before an ordinance can be drafted. Recommendation It is staff's recommendation that Planning Commission review the list of questions in this report and indicate for each question listed whether 1) there is a consensus on how the issue should be handled or 2) more information is desired prior to reaching a consensus. Background/Analvsis The Planning Commission has received considerable background information on this issue prior to this meeting, as well as receiving information from industry representatives and the Cable Commission. At your meeting on August 21, you asked staff to assemble a list of questions which need to be answered before an ordinance on wireless telecommunications towers and antennas could be drafted. This list is noted below. You have also received a chart summarizing provisions from ordinances adopted by other jurisdictions in the area which we are including again. This chart shows how some of the other jurisdictions in our area have answered most of the questions listed in this report. 110 Mounds View Planning Commission 111 SP-001-96: Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Page 2 September 12, 1996 Definitions 1. What terms need to be defined? Location; Type of Use 2. Where should towers and antennas be allowed? Which zoning districts? 3. Should they be listed as allowed or conditional uses? 4. Should the City require co-location of equipment on a limited number of towers? 5. Should applicants be required to provide room on their tower for other companies' equipment? 6. Should the City specify where on the property the tower must be located? 7. What should the setback requirements be? 8. Should the City specify that the tower must go on a municipal site, owned by the City? Lighting/Signage/Color/Design/Landscaping&Screening 9. What allowance or limits should be put on lighting a tower? 10. What allowance or limits should be put on signage on a tower? 11. Should the City specify the color(s) allowed to be used for the tower? 12. Should the City specify the type of tower? What tower design is permitted? . 13. Should separate accessory buildings be permitted? 14. What design standards should be established for accessory buildings? 15. What landscaping and/or screening requirements should be established? Height Limits 16. What should the height limit be? 17. Should a bonus be given for towers holding two or more companies' equipment? Miscellaneous 18. What provisions shouldbe_made_for_non conforming towers? 19. Should specific provisions for abating towers in violation of the Code be stated? 20. Should the City require removal of obsolete or unused towers? What time limit should be used? 21. Should the City require documentation that emissions from these antennas will not affect other wireless communications? 22. Should the City require proof of need? search for alternative sites based on certain criteria? • Mounds View Planning Commission SP-001-96: Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Page 3 September 12, 1996 Additional Information Matt Danielson, representing SBA, Inc., has provided copies of two items which discuss whether there is a potential health hazard from personal communication systems. We also have received a staff report and sample ordinance from Richfield, which is in the process of updating its regulations regarding telecommunications facilities. These items are attached. cc: Coralie Wilson,Executive Director,North Suburban Cable Commission,950 Woodhill Drive, Roseville,MN 55113;FAX 482-1262 Chantell Kadin,Zoning Manager,CB Commercial Telecommunications,2550 University Ave. West, Suite 159S, St. Paul MN 55114; FAX 645-1526 Matt Danielson, SBA,Inc.,7625 Metro Blvd, Suite 235,Edina MN 55439; FAX 830-1924 Attachments: Comparison of Ordinances on Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (chart) Staff Report and Proposed Ordinance, City of Richfield "What is PCS?" "Radio Frequency Exposure Considerations Applicable to Personal Communications Systems" • specproj\telecom.pc2 • 'a e _ B = $ f �• Aoa ii2 a.5bSa eO ,,. N., g E y = L y.., O V•o IIi: t, . 2 u c !: 8 o S 3 7 y 2:2 y 3 V 9" c ^.N c m e 3 2 .y -ao 1 C g-72 g .31 = a 4 74 m 2.y• ,m _.„2,.. W. 22. 0. 1. 0 0'° m.a° 3 5 u• c u O O 2 • u u a. ?.fv.ti 3e y C c.y.a I >.Li•y E °es - - C g a a m'v .? g co.a 24 ?01 V uB moa 3 V .§ v 3 2 _ e ^ y e C = y y C a a - .�. • A s g a • v 7J.e e• A Y = O ^ V y "..4 o0 a 3 a n a 9. ^ O W W 3 N 7$ a 3 ''^O1$ m V O my P. • = GA - yE C t l'i o y A ^ V aAsm %•m O E a'a Q U yV C a e QA V 7 y ^ . ^ 2 e W a y 3 .^. . a Ay _ = y O V .3 . A o A 5 E A : e. 8 .'J a U aC 6. G a a0 V C 3 V y L.. .. , .. — - 2 '5 •3 ^ N N • Q 7:',. "J_' y 3 n N V 4 a A1 Z 9.•+ C a. e O O J • 0 8 ' u ° V V v N t a J 2 A u'0 3 c 8.2 20 a.= = e = ., z.1., I 'IA Op 9=N J a y A j ••9 a ° C a • - 2. 5j n Ti a ov _ ` — 37 W . = c / 0 x -1�-: =' ya A i W3 3 n J 3 s ? o •, 3 a H a a u > S 1a 3 3z: E a3 5' 3a -1 - 9"3 u ° of — a 3 ? i. 7 a.^ .o 2 — is — m E. m m n .A, 0 2 a-4 a 3 .._ a a V y O O a J V =. j y a A r 0..- _ - a y 0 y _ •:.....9: n m 8 2 n U , Ti 2. i/ I §\ . . ))/ a / (.} ]U § \ ± ]x e § ] � � 22$ 32 2 ; ] {@ a2 - �)�� \ _ \\ �'\ k % _ 2 /) :� a2] } . \\ _ : ]5-0¢! f = iE ] ) /f%]| $ ] \ kw z] ] ) )) gr 5 2 r3 7 \} 2§] 2H • . z2 \ o ik e \ w 5 - 3 8¢j .5- g\\ ƒ = . 32 } o/ 3 ljii \ . _ /\)7] ; ]\\ ) § | . (.ƒ; §-205=- \ /4%;] E! a -- \ - _ , \ e « 332 ;2 ` - '2 = -• a. k ] , _ _ _ ƒ d - ! : a _ .= 2 , \ \ (\\ \ 2 ) } ) ƒ2)\k \/ } ]]a } ` :.0. _ _22223{3) } - } 2 ee � $§«_ » \/ / : !2 = � ; a , - - - - - - _ 0 24«] I�a � I; 2 , I) 2 }]§ ]/ k }} ; - k « \ - #2i }± )\ a ) _ \-. ) \- = = Qk/513\ } \� ) /! _ ! _ _ \ _ _ \- 2 « )g - \ e . } ) ) k2 $ k ) ) • 3j \ 2ƒ ] )ƒ \ . _ - _ ) @Z } \ , \3 ) k ;< = = ! , , 2 27] ] ) $k it• } ; ..3- 4-g _ \ } } { \ j` • H Cao . C 6.1ao u o p • . Y O C T r;O �a £ mw cg c. u J2 m y e i 7 — m o X13 'a! go,s? `o •C `m oq T= ` �=? -• vs o • Y u-_ d. y m oy y3 3x — o°' ' o C • L • Si - T 8 • 2 3 o y•m•m o` u-o _ g "g �c ._2 _ '5n Up •7 COv Vo oq.8 -.- g m >.7 C Y m ago j U • - .. co, O E af O e `u8 OH,a> m >' • U = U— '> e o 2 ea S a° u co u C c > 0. 3 7 2 O u +� m Ia c-e ` v u m u m�C m > m opa - 0 'a - m mC 5oO q c = e. c .. rSj 7 7�•= _ a 0 0 u 3 S -o A59 8 = o= a p n 7 Z' 1.11 _ . m = `u o :2. _ y 9 V > 3 _ -Q O '' c" 2 ap .L U. jV.O U U L_ .m a o . •a•-g 7 7 X? U V a 9 a --. 1.) CU •7 J3 _7 77 .. y 1 . = u - y m p ym 2 = J U " O H A Uj 5 0 = - 0 0-C U p >, C e a 'e C1 a.7; 9 0.3.0 a = �U T i p 6i1 §- 1 p •- a 9 O en L L' 0 V ? m = '7 4 T= ii i.;', V -7.0 �.0 a = e U 2 7 ..t7: �� � c `u',1 e 7 7 g• L 7 0 v v 7 2 o ^--9 p _2 A eo U - j 7 0 = = m - _ - IW; IilL O -.0 4 v �C+J O `▪ = = i ; 7 -o''. op e O s' 7 - O _ G .0 O . — 2 3'- a o u'T a .'.2. O 0 7 n O-` O U n,.§. S m =v 7. —O U U . U v 3 u V T R o u` `g 5: o � � 3 '-' v j O u _ O<:::4. J n > yo 7 a'2 C 2 ..VC O S J r •00 • 0 u 'a 11 _D 4 j - �-9 A 8 `o '- 3 = oo dl 0 j O 9 j y . .� v� J '. of x r 21 • \k ) k\)\ . a 0 . - &�.a _§ a2] . ` � / } k)) ƒ\ / {§ § = • \\ � i t.cc \ . 3 \\ \) j \ : ® _ ■ - -- \ . . ) \\\ � k) • 2 § ) {k ?k}k %])j \ . § . .z- / \ ( kk \ o g.-- '5 = /\ 8]% ; \2 S . 32 k\ .4 } \) �kk\/) !\) ! 1-1_- - ' ` \~& 5 I = C.• • \ ƒ} ) . � | E \§2 /*\]]} | ] ) 1) §--u: <:�� ` » » § z .yy . S. >E. ) )\ ] E- 9 - S . \ \k - . - 2 ) \\ ) `3 _ - - ; ), 18 37 ea- 2==•_ • 7} 7 ;) ; ; . . f3 - 3g \ i2a4\ \) /}\ 2 }\\ \ } } \\) \ § )\ $\) • 0 12 .E 1111 i / ` «$ z � %7 ! ] 2 2 ) ] ] § | / ! • . .- < - •CO # j-• 2 4 A _ oF RIOHFIELD OITY CITY OF RICHFIELD PLNIfIlfiG OOmmission • Letter alissumeme • Item: #2 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #11 Date: August 27, 1996 • GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Consideration of an ordinance amendment on telecommunication towers and antennas. References: See attachments. ANALYSIS Background: Over the past several months, the City has received requests to locate telecommunication towers and antennas in various locations in the City as well as on City facilities. The City's current ordinance does not enable City staff to adequately respond to these requests. On June 24, 1996 the City Council passed a moratorium on the siting of towers and antennas and directed staff to study the issues. • The communications industry has experienced significant growth, changes in technology, and deregulation over the past several years. The increased demand - for wireless telephone services is a part of this growth and change. The positive result of the growth and change will be additional and improved communication services to City residents and businesses. However, towers and antennas will need to be located in the City to provide this unproved service. The goal of the City's ordinance should be to facilitate improved communication services while minimizing the potential negative impact of the communication infrastructure. Until last year, the demand for wireless telephone service was provided through cellular communications technology. In 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned off two additional licenses to companies offering a new type of wireless technology kno as-PersonaLCommunicatio u -• ' - (PCS). Additional Iicenses of PCS technology will likely be sold in the future. Each company will need its own antenna and tower infrastructure to provide service. It is unknown how many companies will ultimately be providing services in the Twin Cities. • The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 places limits over a municipality's ability to regulate telecommunication towers and antennas. Cities are bound by the following limitations: • cities may not "unreasonably" discriminate among providers; • cities may not restrict wireless communications on the basis of environmental effects; and • the use of zoning power to restrict antennas must be reasonable and not have • the effect of either prohibiting service or unreasonably enhancing the "market value" of City facilities. Cities do have the ability to establish reasonable standards and regulations for towers and antennas to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Issues: • Existing Regulations: —The zoning ordinance considers antennas owned by telecommunication companies to be accessory uses in the MR-3, C-2, and I districts. The antenna must be located on the roof top, cannot contain advertising, and is a • conditional use if it's over 10 feet. —Amateur radio towers are limited to a height of 70 feet and must be located in the rear yard. —Satellite dishes are treated like accessory buildings unless they're on a roof top. They must be in the rear yard or on a roof top. —Towers owned and operated by telecommunications companies are not conceived of or addressed by the ordinance. • Purpose of Proposed Ordinance: —Provisions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community while providing for a well designed and efficient communications system. Minimiw.adverse visual effects, avoid potential damage to adjacent properties, maximize the use of existing towers and buildings. • Location for Towers and Antennas: --Antennas permitted as accessory uses in the MR-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, and I districts if no higher than 10 feet; conditional use if over 10 feet. —Antennas permitted as accessory uses with approval from the Community Development Director in a PUD; amend PUD plan if over 10 feet. —Antennas permitted as accessory uses in the R district if church(if camouflaged), park, government, school, utility or institutional site; conditional use if over 10 feet. —Towers as conditional uses in C-2, C-3 and I districts —Towers as conditional uses in the R district if church(if camouflaged), park, government, school, utility or institutional site . • Performance Standards for Towers: —Setbacks in the C-2, C-3 and I districts the same as setbacks for an accessory structure(front=35', rear=8', interior side=3', streetside=25'). Setbacks in the R district same as setbacks for a principal structure (40', 10', 10', 30'). —Additional setback from residential use of 1.5 times the height of the tower. —The Council may reduce the setback to allow integration into an existing structure such as a church steeple. —Allowed only in the rear yard —Maximum height of 150' —No signage — No lighting unless required by FAA or if the tower is designed to be a light fixture. —Neutral color(except when required by the FAA) —Monopole design unless exception given by the Council • Co-location —New towers over 75 feet must be designed to accommodate one additional user(unless height restriction by FAA). —Applications for new towers must show why service can't be provided on an existing building or tower within a one mile radius of the proposed location. —The Council must find one or more of the following reasons for the 1111 company not using an existing structures unwillingness of structure/tower owner, would exceed structural capacity of existing structure, frequency interference, performance or system capacity would be affected. • Performance Standards for Antennas: —Height up to 10 feet is accessory, over 10 feet is conditional use —No signage —Screening to the extent practicable —If more than one antennas, clustered in a single location where possible —No artificial lighting unless required by the FAA • Accessory Buildings/Equipment: —Same rules apply as they would to any other accessory building —Additional size allowed for a telecommunications accessory building in the R district, up to 350 square feet —Architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. —Ground mounted equipment must be screened with vegetation or other approved means of screening • Abandonment Provision: —An abandoned tower may be declared a nuisance and removed by the City after use has been discontinued for 12 months • Health Standards: —Must comply with federal health standards; if those change, must comply with new standards • Interference: — Can't interfere with public safety communications, the Director of Public Safety may request an evaluation indicating that won't occur • • Emergency Alert System: —Require communications providers to participate in digital Emergency Alert System unless proven to be technically unfeasible or prohibited by the FCC • Structural Issues: —All towers and antennas must obtain a permit from the building official —Must conform to the building code, electrical code —Towers must be certified by a licensed engineer that the tower complies —Must be inspected every five years, results submitted to the Building Official. • —Amateur-Radio Towers/Accessory-Antennas: —Minor changes to the existing ordinance —Permitted in rear yards —May be in the side yard if affixed to the building and four feet from the property line —Comply with antenna performance standards, e.g. no lighting, signage —Maximum height of 70 feet —Need a permit if over 10 feet RECOMMENDATION Recommended • Action: Preferred: Discuss and review the attached ordinance amendment, suggest any changes, and make a recommendation to the City Council. Basis: 1.Changes and growth in the telecommunications industry have led to increased demand for communication towers and antennas, and standards are needed to guide the location of these towers and antennas. 2.The City's current City Code and Zoning Ordinance do not allow for an • adequate response to requests to locate towers and antennas in the City. 3.Ordinances from other cities have been reviewed and information has been solicited from industry representatives in the development of the proposed ordinance. 4.The moratorium on the development of towers and antennas will end on October 1, 1996. It would be appropriate to have regulations in place before the end of the moratorium. Planning Commission action on August 27 will allow for City Council first and second readings in the month of September. Alternative: Recommend an extension of the moratorium to allow further study of the issue. i s • • Richfield City Code 426.01 Section 426 -Public Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services Antennas and Towers • 426.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the safe installation and usage of public commercial wireless telecommunication services (CWTS) towers and antennas. The provisions of this section are intended to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community, while providing for well designed and efficient telecommunications systems. The provisions are intended to minimize the adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards,to avoid potential damage to adiacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements, and to maximize the use of existing towers and buildings to accommodate antennas and reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. 426.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section and the zoning code of the city, the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. "Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services" means any licensed telecommunication services including cellular. personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio(ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the public. Subd. 3. "CWTS Antenna" means any structure or device which transmits and receives electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas such as panels, microwave dishes, satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas. Subd. 4. "CWTS Tower" means any pole, spire. structure, or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar • apparatus above grade, for the purpose of provide CWTS to the public. 426.05. Location. Subdivision 1. The requirements in this subsection apply to CWTS towers and antennas erected, constructed, placed, re-erected or replaced in the City. Subd. 2 A CWTS tower or antenna or combination thereof may not be located in any front Yard or side yard. Subd. 3. CWTS towers shall be allowed in the following zoning districts with a conditional use permit: a) C-2, C-3, and I districts; b) R district on church (when camnn aged-as steeples-or bell towers or other ble-features) park, government, school, utility and institutional sites: and c) Planned unit development districts as approved in the final development plan. Subd. 4. CWTS antennas shall be allowed as an accessory use in the following zoning districts: a) C-1. C-2, C-3 and I districts: b) R district on church (when camouflaged as steeples or bell towers or other suitable features), park, government, school, utility and institutional sites; and c) Planned unit development districts with administrative approval by the Community Development Director. • 426.07. CWTS Tower Performance Standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply to any CWTS tower that is erected, constructed, placed, re-erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city. • Subd. 2. Minimum setback requirements: a) Towers in the C-2, C-3 and I districts shall meet the setback requirements for an accessory structure for the underlying district. • b) Towers in the R district shall meet the setback requirements for a principal structure for the underlying district. c) In addition to the setback requirements in Section 426.07, Subd. 2 (a) and (b), towers in all zoning districts shall have a setback from residential uses a distance equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower. c) The City Council, at its discretion, may reduce the required setback to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light standard power line support device, or similar structure. • Subd. 3. Height. The maximum height of a tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed 150 feet. Subd. 4. Signage. No signage is permitted on a tower except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacture or by federal, state or local authorities. Subd. 5. Lighting. Towers and related antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. When incorporated into the approved design of the towers, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to • the tower. Subd. 6. Design Requirements. Proposed or modified towers shall meet the following design requirements: a) Towers shall be painted a neutral color and designed to minimize visibility and blend into the surrounding environment except in cases where color is dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. b) Towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City Council. at its discretion,approves an alternative design. Subd. 7. Co-location. All towers shall comply with the following requirements: a) If a tower exceeds 75 feet in height, the tower shall be designed to structurally accommodate the owner's antennas and at least one additional user unless the additional height required for an additional user is prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. The conditional use permit application should include a Ietter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow for the shared use of the tower: b) Shared use of existing towers or structures shall be preferred to the construction of a new tower. A proposal for a new telecommunications tower shall not be approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one mile search radius. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed antennas cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or structure due to one or more of the following reasons: • (i) the unwillingness of the owner of the existing structure or tower to co-locate an additional antenna: (ii) the planned antenna would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers and facilities: • Richfield City Code (Zoning) R District f) driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks legally existing on or before • December 31, 1993, may continue to exist and to be repaired and maintained, except that upon full replacement, such driveway, parking area, or sidewalk shall comply with this subdivision; and g) any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, or sidewalk on a lot shall be subject to a City permit. Subd. 112. Satellite dish antennas and other antennas and towers that are incidental to the principal use on the premises (not including those antennas and towers owned and operated by a telecommunications company) provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code and tha ... .--- . - . _ ... . . .. ..: a c) such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to minimize visual impacts on surrounding properties. Screening shall include compatible with those utilized on the exterior of the building for roof --' - - -• - . - ---'ng plans shall be approved by the Dirccter; and • -• ' - :- ---- - -- • -• -- - -• they do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, except as provided for in Section 521.07, Subd. 8 of this code. Subd. 13. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Service (CWTS) antennas and related features, the use of which is not incidental to the principal use, provided that they meet the following requirements: a) they conform to Section 426 of the City Code: b) they are located in the following residentially zoned locations: church (when camouflaged as steeples, bell towers or other suitable features). parks government. school. utility and institutional sites; c) they are located on the rooftop or near the roof-line; and d) they do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, except as provided for in Section 521.07, Subd. 9 of this code. Subd. 124. The accommodation of one roomer in addition to the family, provided that: (i) the roomer plus the family shall not exceed a total of five persons; (ii) such arrangement does not constitute an accessory apartment; and (iii) adequate off-street parking is available (see definition of family). • 1 Richfield City Code (Zoning) R District SECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS • 521.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the R District. Subd. 2. Private garages which do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Subd. 3. Greenhouses which do not exceed 175 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and further provided that no sale of products is conducted on the lot. Subd. 4. Storage buildings which do not exceed 175 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Subd. 5. Utility buildings and structures accessory to telecommunications towers which do not exceed 350 square feet in gross floor area and which comply with the setback requirements for a principal structure in the R district. Subd. 56. Gaiebos which do not exceed 175 square feet in gross floor area, and • which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Subd. 57. Carports which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Subd. 78. Private swimming pools as defined in Section 420 of the City Code, provided that such swimming pools and related equipment be located (i) at least ten feet from any rear lot line, (ii) at least ten feet from_any interior side-lot line, i at least 15 feet from any streetside side lot line, and (iv) at least six feet from the principal building and any non-pool related accessory structure. Subd. 89. Licensed day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons, or group family day care facilities Iicensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving 14 or fewer persons, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 910. Licensed foster family homes serving six or fewer children, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 101. Private driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks for residential uses, provided the following conditions are mets • 426.21. Permits. Subdivision 1. Required. Except as provided in subdivision 3, no person may erect, construct, place, re-erect, reconstruct or replace an antenna or tower in the city without first making application for and obtaining a permit therefor from the building official. Subd. 2. Information. The applicant for the permit shall provide at the time of application sufficient information to indicate that the erection, construction, placement, re-erection, reconstruction or replacement will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. In addition, the applicant shall submit a copy of the lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner. Subd. 3. Certification. Towers shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and the Electronics Industry Association. Subd. 4. Exceptions. Permits are not required for the adjustment, repair or replacement of elements of the antenna, provided such adjustment repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor. 426.23. Construction. Subdivision 1. Wind. Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand applicable wind load requirements as prescribed in the state building code. Subd. 2. Treatment. Towers shall be constructed of. or treated with, corrosive resistant material. Subd. 3. Grounding. Antennas and metal towers shall be grounded for protection against a direct strike by lightning and shall comply as to electrical wiring and connections with the national electrical code. Subd. 4. Climbing. A tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. • Subd. 5. Appurtenant structures. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it, in any way, except during time of repair or installation, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair. Subd. 6. All towers must be inspected once every five years by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to certify compliance with original construction standards. Results of the inspection must be submitted to the building official. 426.25. Non-conforming installations. Subdivision 1. General rule. Antenna and towers in existence on November 1, 1996 which do not conform to or comply with this section may continue to exist for the purpose now used but may not be replaced or structurally altered except as provided in subdivision 2 without complying with this section. Subd. 2. Replacement. If a non-conforming tower or antenna is damaged or destroyed the tower or antenna may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit therefor. but without otherwise complying with these regulations, provided, however, that the cost or repairing the tower to its former use, size or location does not exceed 50 percent of the cost of a new tower of like kind or quality. 426.27. Variances. The council may grant variances to the literal provisions of Sections 426.05, subd. 2, 426.07, and 426.09 in the same manner and subject to the same requirements that apply to variances granted under section 546 of the zoning code. • (iii) the planned antenna would cause radio frequency interference with other existing or planned equipment, which cannot reasonably be prevented: (iv) other reasons affecting technical performance, system coverage, and system capacity make it impractical to place the equipment proposed on existing structures or towers: and/or (v) other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned equipment on an existing or approved tower or building.. 426.09. CWTS Antenna Performance Standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply all CWTS antennas that are erected, constructed, placed, re-erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city. Subd. 2. Height. The maximum height of an antenna is 10 feet without a conditional use permit. Subd. 3. Signage. No advertising message shall be on the antenna structure. Subd. 4. Screening. Such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent_practicable to minimize visual impacts on surrounding properties. Subd. 5. Number. If more than one such structure is proposed on a property, they shall be clustered in a single grouped location where possible. Subd. 6. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. • 426.11. Accessory Buildings and Equipment. All buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback requirements in Section 426.07, subd. 2. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by vegetation or other means of screening as approved by the Community Development Director. 426.13. Abandonment. All obsolete or unused towers and related antennas and equipment shall be removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations. The owner shall provide the City with a copy of the notice of the Federal Communication Commission's intent to cease operations and shall be given twelve months from the date of ceasing operations to remove the tower and related equipment unless a time extension is approved by the City Council. If a time extension is not approved and the tower is not removed within twelve months, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to Section 925 of the City Code. In the event a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the to er--and-associated-facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property. 426.15. Interference. All new or existing telecommunications service shall comply with all relevant Federal Communication Commission standards and shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications. At the discretion of the Director of Public Safety, the owner of a telecommunications service may be required to submit an inter-modulation study which provides a technical evaluation of existing and proposed transmissions and indicates all potential interference problems. 426.17. Health-Related Standards. Antennas placed upon a tower shall be subject to state and federal regulations pertaining to nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. If new. more restrictive standards are adopted, the antennas shall be made to comply or continued operations may be restricted by the City Council. 426.19. Emergency Alert System. All new or existing telecommunications service providers shall ccordinate with the Director of Public Safety to participate in the digital Emergency Alert System unless evidence is provided that such participation is technologically unfeasible or prohibited by the Federal Communication Commission • Richfield City Code (Zoning) • R District SECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 521.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the R District. Subd. 2. Private garages which do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Subd. 3. Greenhouses which do not exceed 175 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and further provided that no sale of products is conducted on the lot. Subd. 4. Storage buildings which do not exceed 175 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Subd. 5. Utility buildings and structures accessory to telecommunications towers which do not exceed 350 square feet in gross floor area and which comply with the setback requirements for a principal structure in the R district. Subd. 56. Gazebos which do not exceed 175 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Subd. 67. Carports which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the Iot. Subd. 7$. Private swimming pools as defined in Section 420 of the City Code, provided that such swimming pools and related equipment be located (i) at least ten feet from any rear lot line, (ii) at least ten feet from any interior side lot line, (iii) at least 1 —feet from any—streetside—side—lot line, and (1v) at least si. feet from the principal building and any non-pool related accessory structure. Subd. 89. Licensed day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons, or group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving 14 or fewer persons, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 910. Licensed foster family homes serving six or fewer children, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 101. Private driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks for residential uses, provided the following conditions are met: • • Richfield City Code (Zoning) R District t) driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks legally existing on or before December 31, 1993, may continue to exist and to be repaired and maintained, except that upon full replacement, such driveway, parking area, or sidewalk shall comply with this subdivision; and g) any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, or sidewalk on a • lot shall be subject to a City permit. Subd. 112. Satellite dish antennas and other antennas and towers that are incidental to the principal use on the premises (not including those antennas and towers owned and operated by a telecommunications company) provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Codeandthat: -: - -- . - . . ... . ... ..'. :. a) if more than one sueh strueture is proposed, they sly be el ste ed in a single grouped location; c)-such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to minimize visual impacts on surrounding properties. Screening shall include netted a±ena structures. Screening plans shall be armed by the Director; and • t -such roof mounted structures shall they do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, except as provided for in Section 521.07, Subd. 8 of this code. Subd. 13. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Service (CWTS) antennas and related features, the use of which is not incidental to the principal use, provided that they meet the following requirements: a) they conform to Section 426 of the City Code; b) they are located in the following residentially zoned locations: church (when camouflaged as steeples, bell towers or other suitable features), park. government, school, utility and institutional sites; c) they are located on the rooftop or near the roof-line; and d) they do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, except as provided for in Section 521.07. Subd. 9 of this code. Subd. 124. The accommodation of one roomer in addition to the family, provided that: (i) the roomer plus the family shall not exceed a total of five persons; (ii) such arrangement does not constitute an accessory apartment; and (iii) adequate off-street • parking is available (see definition of family). • Richfield City Code (Zoning) R District Subd. 138. Home occupations which are operated in accordance with Section 511.21 of this code. Subd. 146. Fences, walls, and hedges as permitted in Section 511.23 of this code. Subd. 157. Gardening, provided no sale of products is conducted on the lot. Subd. 168. Parking for non-residential principal uses (e.g., schools or churches), as authorized by a Council approved off-street parking permit. Subd. 179. Other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to the principal use, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. 521.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the R District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 2. Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities serving seven or more persons, or such facilities which are located within 1/4 mile of another such facility. Care facilities located within the R District shall be subject to the same zoning regulations as single family dwellings in the R District. Subd. 3. Accessory day care facilities serving more than 12 persons licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities, or accessory group family day care facilities • licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14 persons, or as otherwise permitted by law, provided such facilities are located in non- residential buildings (e.g., schools or churches) and the following conditions are met: a) parking lot setback and screening shall comply with the Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development; . b) designated pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site; and c) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which A buts-a-residentialpar-cel. Subd. 4. Accessory foster family homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities serving more than six children, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 5. Private non-commercial recreational facilities as a principal use. Subd. 6. Two family dwellings, provided the following conditions are met: a) the lot shall abut an arterial or collector street; b) the lot area, width, and depth shall comply with Section 521.09, Subd. 2 of • this code; • Richfield City Code (Zoning) R District c) two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit; 11111 d) driveway access to the property from public streets shall be allowed in accordance with Section 521.05, Subd. 10, paragraph e), item (iv); e) for new construction each dwelling unit shall contain at least 750 square feet of interior floor space, and for conversion of a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling each unit shall contain at least 500 square feet of interior floor space. For the purpose of this subsection, interior floor space shall include the total horizontal area of the dwelling unit as measured from the interior walls of the unit; and f) the structure shall meet all setback requirements for two-family dwellings as indicated under Section 521.11, except that a single family dwelling which does not meet the required two family interior side setback may be converted into a two-family dwelling if the dwelling is not expanded or if the expansion meets all applicable two family dwelling requirements. Subd. 7. Bed and breakfast inns, provided the following conditions are met: a) no more than two rental rooms shall be provided; b) at least two off-street parking spaces (may include garage stalls) shall be • provided for the residence, and at least one off-street parking space shall be provided on the lot for each rental room; c) the use shall be contained within a single family detached dwelling; d) outdoor parking areas shall be screened with landscape materials; and e) the operator shall secure all applicable licenses and approvals from the city, county, state, or other applicable jurisdictions before the conditional use permit will become effective. Subd. 8. Accessory roof-mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof(not including those antennas that are owned and operated by a telecommunications company), provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code. Subd. 9. CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than 10 feet above the highest point of the roof, provided that they conform to the requirements of Section 426 of the City Code. Subd. 10 CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code and that they are located in the following residentially zoned locations: church (when camouflaged as steeples, bell towers or other suitable >� features), park, government, school, utility and institutional sites. 9 • • • Ash 11. 521.79. High Density Multi-Family Residential District (MR-3). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.79 to 521.95 apply to the MR-3 District. 521.83. Accessory uses. Subdivision.1. The uses permitted inthis subsection are allowable accessory uses in the MR-3 District. - Subd. 2. Parking, as•authorized by a Council approved off-street parking permit. Subd. 3. Garages for any residential structure, provided they are located in a common building or space approved by the City under a uniform plan. Subd. 4. Swimming pools subject to Section 420 of the City Code, tennis courts, and - similar recreational facilities. Subd. 5. Storage buildings designed for common use by residents or members of the homeowners association or similar organization, or for use by the maintenance staff for storage or as a workshop associated with normal upkeep of the property. Subd. 6. One leasing, sales, or management office per development, provided it is used solely for leasing, sales, or management of units within the development, does not exceed 2,000 square feet of floor area, and is an integral part of the development. Subd. 7. Licensed family day care homes serving three or fewer persons, or group • family day care facilities Iicensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving six or fewer persons, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 8. Licensed foster family homes serving three or fewer children, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 9. Satellite dish antennas and other antennas and towers that are incidental to the principal use on the premises, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code and --- . - •-• ... .-.. ..• . - c) such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to mounted antenna structures. Screening plana shall be approved by the Director; and • d such roof_ ,ountcd structures shall that they do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, except as provided for in Section 521.85, Subd. 76 of this code. � t) • • 111, Subd. 10. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services (CWTS) Aantennas and related features : :. • : - :: :.-: - : : • - ••- -- - - • . •- . • :.- , the use of which is not incidental to the principal use; provided•that they conform to Section 4256 of the City Code, are located on the rooftop or near the roof-line, screened from public view to the extent possible, do not carry advertising mcasagc3, and do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof except as provided for in Section 521.85, Subd. 7 of this code. Subd. 11. Home occupations which are operated in accordance with Section 511.21 of this code. Subd. 12. Fences, walls, and hedges as permitted in Section 511.23 of this code. Subd. 13. Other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to the principal use, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. 521.85. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the MR-3 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 2. Multi-family dwellings with more than 20 units. •Subd. 3. Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities serving seven or more persons, or such facilities which are located within 1/4 mile of another such facility. Care facilities located within the MR-3 District shall be subject to the same zoning regulations as two family dwellings in the MR-3 District. Subd. 4. Accessory day care facilities serving more than three persons licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities, or accessory group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than six persons, or as otherwise permitted by law, provided such facilities are located in common areas of multi-family buildings and the following conditions are met: a) designated pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site; and b) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from all lot lines and buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on neighboring properties. Subd. 5. Accessory foster family homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities serving more than three children, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 6. Accessory Rroof-mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code. • it • • Subd. 7. CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than 10 feet above the highest point of the roof, provided that they conform to the requirements of Section 426 of the City Code. Subd. ;8. Major public utilities. Subd. 89. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. • 4110 SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 526.01. Neighborhood Business District (C-1). Subdivision 1. Subsections 526.01 to 526.19 apply to the C-1 District. 526.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the C-1 District. Subd. 2. One accessory building which is 750 square feet or less in gross floor area. Subd. 3. Parking, as authorized by a Council approved off-street parking permit. Subd. 4. Assembly or warehouse operations incidental to a permitted or conditional use, provided such use occupies no more than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal building. Subd. 5. Apartments within commercial buildings, provided such use occupies not more than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the principal building unless provided for under Section 526.07, Subd. 6. Subd. 6. Accessory &satellite dish antennas and other antennas and towers that are • incidental to the principal use on the premises, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code and llowing additional requirements: a) if more than one such structure is proposed, they shall be clustered in a . .. b -' :'' c) such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to - • •-- . ' .•• •--; - - • ;. -.•-;__preperti. Screening shall include Director; and • 4)—such roof mounted structurc3 shall that they do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, except as provided for in Section 526.07, Subd. 9 of this code. Subd. 7. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services (CWTS) antennas and related features, the use of which is not incidental to the principal use; provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code, are located on the rooftop or near the • roof-line. screened from public view to the extent possible, and do not extend higher i.1") • than ten feet above the highest point of the roof except as provided for in Section • 526.07. Subd. 10 of this code. Subd. 78. Fences, walls, and hedges as permitted in Section 511.23 of this code. Subd. 89. Other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to the principal use, as determined by the City.pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. 526.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C-1 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 2. Neighborhood shopping centers or similar multi-tenant developments with over 6,000 square feet of gross floor area, provided the following conditions are met: a) the lot shall abut an arterial or collector street; and b) the Council shall find that the center or development and its proposed uses are designed specifically to serve the residents of the neighborhood area. Subd. 3. Neighborhood retail, service, and office establishments (excluding those listed in Section 526.09) with over 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, provided the Council finds that the use is designed specifically to serve the residents of the neighborhood area. • Subd. 4. Class II (traditional/cafeteria) restaurants and Class IV (take out only) restaurants, provided the following conditions are met: a) the gross floor area of the restaurant shall not exceed 2,000 square feet; b) drive-up window service and exterior loudspeakers shall not be permitted; c) alcoholic beverages shall not be served; and d)_no more than two s .ch restaurant—uses--shall—be provided—within a neighborhood shopping center or similar multi-tenant development. Subd. 5. Automobile detailing establishments licensed under Section 1195 of the City Code. Subd. 6. Apartments within commercial buildings which exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area. Subd. 7. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met: a) pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed • to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements; • b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which • mitigates visual and noise impacts on any abutting residential parcels; and c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. Subd. 8. Multi-family dwellings that comply with the MR-2 District provisions and requirements, as set out in Section 521.59 of this code. Subd. 9. Accessory Rroof-mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code. Subd. 10. CWTS antennas and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code. Subd. 101. Major public utilities. • • • 1� Richfield City Code (Zoning) C-2 District 526.27, Subd. 16 526.21. General Commercial District (C-2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 526.21 to 526.37 • apply to the C-2 District. 526.25. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the C-2 District. Subd. 2. Parking, as authorized by a Council approved off-street parking permit. Subd. 3. Assembly, light manufacturing, or warehouse operations incidental to a permitted or conditional use, provided such use occupies not more than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the principal building or not more than 2,000 square feet, whichever is greater. Subd. 4. Apartments within commercial buildings, provided such use occupies not more than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the principal building unless provided for under Section 526.27, Subd. 24. Subd. 5. Satellite dish antennas and other antennas and towers that are incidental to the principal use on the lot, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code and that they do meet the following additional requirements: a) if more than one sttel3 s.--- -. " : .:. _:, .- • .. - _. - . • • c) such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to -•- : • ••- •- • - - • - •- •-_ pfepcFtics. Screening shall include compatible with those utilized on the exterior of the building for roof • - -- •• - • • 14. -- - - , plans shall be approved by the Director; and d) such roof mounted structures shall not extend higher than ten feet above the highesEpoint of-he-roof except-as-provided-form-Section-5-2627, Subd. 26 of this code. Subd. 6. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services (CWTS' Aantennas and related features . . •. : _. . : - - . - . - . .-- .:. the use of which is not incidental to the principal use; provided that they conform to Section 4256 of the City Code, are located on the rooftop or near the roof-line, screened from public view to the extent possible, do not carry advertising messages, and do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof except as provided for in Section 526.27, Subd. 267 of this code. Subd. 7. Fences, walls, and hedges as permitted in Section 511.23 of this code. • Subd. 8. Other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to the principal use, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. Richfield City Code (Zoning) C-2 District 526.27, Subd. 16 526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional • uses in the C-2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 2. Shopping centers or similar multi-tenant developments with over 100,000 square feet of gross floor area. Subd. 3. Retail, service, and office uses with over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless located within a shopping center or other multi-tenant development. Subd. 4. Funeral homes, provided the lot abuts an arterial or collector street. Subd. 5. Theaters, provided the following conditions are met: a) for theaters located within shopping centers or otherwise utilizing a shared parking arrangement, the applicant shall submit an analysis of parking demand versus availability for review and approval by staff (additional parking may be required based on this review); and b) free standing theaters shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that vehicular ingress and egress may be accomplished without creating undue traffic congestion on area roadways. Subd. 6. Uses which provide drive-up window or teller service, (excluding Class III • restaurants) provided the following conditions are met: a) a buffer yard of not less than 20 feet in width shall be provided to separate drive-up facilities and related queuing areas from any lot line — if the drive- up facility or queuing area abuts a commercial use or public right-of-way, the Council may reduce the buffer yard to not less than 10 feet; b) queuing space for at least four cars (70 feet) shall be provided per drive-up service lane, as measured from but not including the first drive-up service window—or—teller—station — such—queuing—space—shall—not—interfere—with parking spaces or traffic circulation; c) alcoholic beverages shall not be served; and d) exterior speakers shall comply with the noise control limits set by Section 930 of the City Code. Subd. 7. Class I (full service) restaurants and Class II (traditional/cafeteria) restaurants, provided the following conditions are met: a) a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels -- the Council may • reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet if significant additional landscaping and berming are provided to screen the restaurant use; and Richfield City Code (Zoning) C-2 District 526.27, Subd. 16 b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which • mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. Subd. 26. Accessory Rroof-mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code. • Subd. 27. CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof,provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code. Subd. 28. CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code. Subd. 279. Major public utilities. Subd. 2530. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. i ti� Richfield City Code (Zoning) Industrial District 531.13, Subd. 6 SECTION 531 - ZONING: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT • 531.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed. in. this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the I District. Subd. 2. Parking, as authorized by a Council approved off-street parking permit. Subd. 3. Living quarters for security personnel, provided they are located within the principal structure. Subd. 4. Satellite dish antennas and other antennas and towers that are incidental to the principal use on the premises, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code and ---- - •. ... . .. ..' - - . .- -- - ;:- . -; e)--sueh structures shall be 3crecncd to the greatest extent practicable to ,� .. landscape materials for ground mounted antenna structures, and materials . compatible with those utilized on the exterior of the building for roof manna s etuFes. Screening plans shall be approved by the Director; and 4•}-such roof mounted structures shall that they do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, unless authorized by a conditional use permit.oxcept as provided for in Section 531.07, Subd. 5 of this code. Subd. 5. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services (CWTS) Antennas and related features . . •. . . _. . . • . •- . . :.. the use of which is not incidental to the princise; provided that they conform to Section 4256 of the City Code, are located on the rooftop or near the roof-line, screened from public view to the extent possible, do not carry advertising messages, and do not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, unlc33 authorized by a except as provided for in Section 531.07, Subd. 6 of this code. Subd. 6. Fences, walls, and hedges as permitted in Section 511.23 of this code. Subd. 7. Other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to the principal use, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. 531.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional • uses in the I District, and are subject to the provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. 161 Subd. 2. Light manufacturing, warehouse, assembly, distribution, packaging, . processing, research, repair, service, wholesale, retail, and office uses with over 80,000 square feet of gross floor area. Subd. 3. Those uses outlined in Section 526.27, Subdivisions 4 through 29 of this code, subject to the same conditions. Subd. 4. Vehicle towing businesses, provided the following conditions are met: • a) a buffer yard of not less than 15 feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from any abutting parcel; b) parking of vehicles on public right-of-way shall be prohibited; c) any outdoor storage of towed vehicles shall be fully screened from view of adjacent properties and public right-of-way; and d) hours of operation may be limited by the Council to protect any neighboring residential properties from adverse impacts. Subd. 5. Accessory roof-mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code. • Subd. 6. CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code. Subd. 7. CWTS towers and related features. provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code. Subd. 58. Other uses of the same general character as those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. Richfield City Code 425.01 Section 425-Accessory Aantennaes and towers. • 425.01. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section and the zoning code of the city, the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. "Antenna" means equipment located on the exterior of or outside of a building or structure used for transmitting or receiving radio, television or telecommunications signals. Subd. 3. "Tower" means a pole, spire, or structure or any combination thereof to which an antenna is attached including supporting lines, wires and braces. Subd. 4. "Satellite antenna" means a structure and all supporting apparatus which is used for receiving satellite signals: if the structure is roofmounted and exceeds ten feet in height above the highest point of the roof, it is considered a roof-mounted antenna: if the structure is ground-mounted it is considered an accessory building. 425.03. General rule. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no antenna or tower may be erected, constructed, placed, re-erected or replaced in a rc idcntial zoning district of the city except in conformance with this section. 425.05. Permits. Subdivision 1. Required. Except as provided in subdivision 3, no person may erect, construct, place, re-erect, reconstruct or replace an antenna or tower in the city without first making application for and obtaining a permit therefor from the building official. Subd. 2. Information. The applicant for the permit shall provide at the time of application sufficient • information to indicate that the erection, construction, placement, re-erection, reconstruction or replacement will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. Subd. 3. Exceptions. Permits are not required for: (a) an antenna or combination of antennae and tower rigidly attached to a building provided that the combination of antenna and tower does not exceed a total height of ten feet above the highest point of attachment; (b) antennae and towers used by the city for city purposes; (c)—adjus menr repair or replacement f the elements of an antenna, provided such adjustment repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor; (d) temporary antennae or towers erected for test purposes, emergency communication, or for broadcast remote pick up operations: temporary antennae and towers shall be removed within 72 hours following installation. 425.07. Location. Subdivision 1. Sideyards. A tower or antenna or combination thereof may not be located in any front yard or side yard except that towers or antennae rigidly attached to the side of the building may project into a required interior side yard provided they are at least four feet from an interior side property line. Subd. 2. Satellite antennae. Groundbased satellite antennae are permitted only in the rear yard and, for purposes of the zoning code, are accessory buildings. The structures are subject to the requirements for accessory buildings listed in the zoning code. 4111 Subd. 3. Extension into streets. No part of any antenna or tower nor any lines, cable, equipment or • •wires, or braces in connection with either shall at any time extend across or over any part of any public right-of- • way, streets, highways, sidewalk or alleys or over any property Iine. 425.09. Height. The total height of any tower, antenna or combination thereof shall not exceed 70 feet from the lowest grade level at the base to the highest point of tower, antenna or combination thereof. The total height of roof mounted towers, antennae or combination thereof may not exceed 70 feet above the average elevation of the lot along the front building line of the building it is mounted on. 425.11. Performance Standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply to any accessory tower, antenna or satellite antenna that is erected, constructed, placed, re-erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city. Subd. 2 Signage. No advertising message shall be on the tower or antenna structure. Subd. 3. Screening. Such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to minimize visual impacts on surrounding properties. Screening plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Subd. 4. Number. If more than one such structure is proposed on a lot, they shall be clustered in a single grouped location where possible. Subd. 5. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. 425.1+3. Construction. Subdivision 1. Wind. Towers with antenna shall be designed to withstand applicable wind load requirements as prescribed in the state building code. Subd. 2. Treatment. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material. Wood poles shall be treated wood in conformance with the building code. Subd. 3. Grounding. Antennae and metal towers shall be grounded for protection against a direct strike by lightning and shall comply as to electrical wiring and connections with the national electrical code. Subd. 4. Climbing. A tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. Subd. 5. Appurtenant structures. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it, in any way, exc ring time of repair or installation, any Lights, reflectors, flashers or other illuminating device, except as required by the Federal Aviation Agency or the Federal Communications Commission, nor shall any tower have constructed thereon or attached thereto, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair. 425.135. Non-conforming installations. Subdivision 1. General rule. Antenna and towers in existence on January 18, 1986 which do not conform to or comply with this section may continue to exist for the purpose now used but may not be replaced or structurally altered except as provided in subdivision 2 without complying with this section. Subd. 2. Replacement. If a non-conforming tower is damaged or destroyed the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit therefor, but without otherwise complying with these regulations, provided, however, that the cost or repairing the tower to its • former use, size or location does not exceed 50 percent of the cost of a new tower of like kind or quality. 425.15. Variances. The council may grant variances to the literal provisions of this eSections 425.07, 425.09, . and 425.11 in the same manner and subject to the same requirements that apply to variances granted under section 5436 of the zoning code. • • • Richfield City.Code (Zoning) Planned-Unit Developments 536.17, Subd. 4 (b) . . SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS 536.11. PUD districts and allowable uses. Subdivision 1. Establishment of PUD districts. The following table-denotes the six types of PUD districts, the abbreviations for such PUD districts, and the allowable uses within each PUD district: • Planned Residential PR R&R-1 • Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1 MR-1 Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR MR-1, MR-2, & MR-3 Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC-i C-1 Planned General Commercial PC-2 C-2 & C-3 Planned Industrial PI I Subd. 2. PMR-1 density limitation. In the PMR-1 District, the density of two family dwellings shall not exceed ten dwelling units per acre. Subd. 3. Mixed land uses. Uses other than the allowable uses listed in Subd. 1 above, are permitted in a PUD district, provided that: a) the use is one which is authorized in one of the six types of PUD districts; b) such additional use shall not occupy more than 33 percent of the gross floor area within the planned unit development; and c) not withstanding the foregoing, an adult establishment as defined and regulated in Section 1196 of the City Code is not permitted in any PUD district other than a PC-2 district. Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted subject to administrative approval from the Community Development Director: --) aceesserv-satellite-dls -antennas--and-other-antennas-and towers-hat-are incidental to the principal use on the premises. provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code; and b) Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services (CWTS) antennas and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of the City Code. • IL JULES COHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 RADIO FREQUENCY EXPOSURE CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS Pursuant to a request from American Personal Communications (APC), a study has been made of the radio-frequency exposure considerations applicable to Personal Communications System base stations. The results of that study are provided below. As described more fully below, the conclusion of the study is that the maximum level of exposure to radio-frequency energy for a person walking or standing in the near vicinity of the antenna would be approximately 200 times below the maximum permissible exposure level set by the most commonly applied safety standard. Furthermore, since that standard incorporates a safety factor of 50 below the threshold level where experiments suggest the possibility of adverse health effects, the base station total safety factor below that threshold level is 200 times 50, or • 10,000. Base stations operated by APC transmit in the frequency band 1930 to 1945 megahertz (millions of cycles per second - abbreviated as MHz) to mobile units. The maximum transmitter power output is only 20 watts. To provide satisfactory service, an antenna is used that directs the power toward the horizon, with very little power directed downward. The maximum equivalent power directed to_the_horizon_is_normall3_noin-excess-of-20-0-watts. In addition to the transmission described in the above paragraph, each base site is equipped with two microwave relay transmitters used to interconnect base sites. These systems use transmitter output of only 0.05 watt and operate at a frequency of approximately 38,000 MHz. The antennas used for this service are highly directional and make a negligible contribution to the total radio-frequency exposure at the site. • The protection standard used most widely in the United States, and one that is in excellent agreement with international standards, is that adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 1992. The standard (ANSI/IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with • r JULES COHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 • • Engineering Report • Page 2 American Personal Communications Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. 3 kHz to 300 GHz) is known as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. In the opening paragraph of the standard, the statement is made: "Recommendations are made to prevent harmful effects in human beings exposed to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. These recommendations are intended to apply to exposures in controlled, as well as uncontrolled, environments." The Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Government licensing agency for non- government users of the radio frequency spectrum, is in the process of adopting that standard as its environmental guide, replacing the 1982 ANSI standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 was prepared by a committee with about 125 participants. The committee inchldPd biologists, medical doctors, physiologists, medical statisticians and • engineers from academia, government and industry, with industry participants being in the minority. In arriving at its conclusions of maximum permissible exposure to radio frequency fields, the scientific literature was reviewed and a determination made of that exposure level that appeared to be the threshold for the appearance of biological effects which might be harmful if exposure continued over a substantial period of time. An additional safety factor of fifty below the threshold level was applied for "uncontrolled" environments, that applicable to the general public. Because of the low power used, and the direction of maximum radiation toward the horizon to maximize service, the exposure level even directly below the antenna system of the base station is only a small fraction of the permitted level• specified for the uncontrolled environment. Assuming the head of the person is no more than approximately 11 feet below the antenna center, the exposure level would be only in the order of 0.0068 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2), approximately 200 times below the standard's maximum permissible exposure level of 1.29 mW/cm2. Where the antenna system is mounted on a rooftop, the exposure • levels within the building are below the measuring capability of the instruments normally used for exposure evaluation. JULES COHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. . CONSULTING ENGINEERS • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 Engineering Report Page 3 American Personal Communications Even in the main beam of the 1900 MHz antenna (a location not accessible without deliberately climbing to the antenna level), uncontrolled environment criteria are not exceeded until within about five feet of the antenna. Mounting of the antenna is necessarily such that interception of the maximum field is not possible for anyone other than p ainterince personnel. An important criterion in designing the mounting arrangement so as to avoid any diminution of its effectiveness, is that no obstructions may be introduced in the antenna's vicinity. The conclusion of the review made is that operation of a base station such as described above, is well within the standards for exposure of humans to radio frequency radiation and those standards were promulgated to provide a safe environment for workers and the population at large. • ea,„_7 Jules Cohen, P.E. June 9, 1994 • ., i What Is PCS? PCS — Personal Communications Services — is a new generation of wireless communications that offers many advantages over cellular.In today's cellular systems,customers'calls ride on conventional analog radio waves.PCS,however,uses the digital pulses of computers to dramatically improve the array and quality of services available to consumers.Designed for universal portable telecommunications,PCS features a lightweight,portable telephone with multiple features that also functions as a pager and eventually as a modem and fax. How PCS works Within a metropolitan region,PCS systems use"cells"or geographic coverage areas that resemble a honeycomb.Located within each cell are antennas and a base station comprised of switching equipment in a box about the size of a commercial refrigerator.The base station allows callers to communicate with wireless or wireline phones,computers,faxes and pagers.As a caller moves geographically from one cell to another,the digital signal moves to the adjacent cell.The signal travels from the wireless phone to the base station and is relayed to the switching equipment.The call is then connected to the local phone network or to other wireless users on the system. The PCS advantage PCS outshines cellular in a number of ways,including: •Improved voice quality and consistency: The digital PCS system operates at a higher frequency than III cellular systems.This allows for significant improvements in voice quality.PCS conversations are sharp and clear,free from the cross-talk common with today's analog cellular systems.There is less static,less fading.And because a digital system can accommodate more voice and data traffic than an analog system,there are dramatically fewer incomplete and dropped calls. •Increased security and privacy: Digital PCS transmission is more secure than analog cellular, which suffers from eavesdropping on conversations and theft of electronic ID numbers.Analog systems spawn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in illicit commerce in"cloned" cellular numbers, inconveniencing subscribers and causing upward pressure on cellular service prices. PCS digital signals,however,are scrambled to minimize eavesdropping or cloning. •Advanced features: Digital PCS systems are feature-rich compared to analog systems.Sprint Spectrum PCS customers,for instance,will enjoy such features as e-mail,voice mail and paging combined in a single handset. Because digital is also the medium of data_transmission,Sprint Spectrum service will include data services as well — all in the same lightweight handset. •Smaller antenna facilities: As wireless technology has evolved,so has the ability to reduce the size of the equipment for each site.For most PCS sites,the size of each facility is smaller than cellular - facilities,requiring equipment cabinets that in total are about half the size of today's cellular equipment. One of the most exciting things about PCS is that it will ease our evolution from calling places to calling people. With what some people refer to as"follow me"technology,the notion of separate home,office, car,fax and pager numbers will become obsolete as PCS provides a variety of useful features including: on-screen alpha numeric paging,caller ID,text messaging,call barring,call forwarding,speed dialing,call waiting,voicemail,and eventually even the transmission of video images. III . 1 0 Radio Transmission and Public Health A PCS Perspective Personal Communications Services(PCS)is simply an extension of your ordinary telephone service and other forms of communication that use radio waves instead of wires to transmit and receive phone calls, paging signals and other types of communications. PCS signals are designed for broadcast toward the horizon with a well-focused pattern that attempts to cover a broad geographic area.This design results in very weak signals below the antennas where people work and live.In addition,nearly all PCS facilities are located high above the ground on rooftops or sides of large structures or on freestanding monopoles. This means the possibility of direct interaction with the antennas is very limited and unlikely. Public exposure to PCS frequencies is not new.The frequency band used by PCS is a basic part of the electromagnetic spectrum that has been re-allocated by the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) for PCS.In fact,the power used by AM/FM stations,TV and local airport air traffic control systems are sub- stantially greater than that used by PCS. What About"EMF"? "EMF" is the shorthand term for"electromagnetic force:' EMF exists around any magnet or electrical appliance,and everywhere on earth from nature.Scientifically unconfirmed,but often-heard negative talk • about EMF involves the intense voltages and magnetic fields around high-tension power lines(carrying tens or hundreds of thousands of volts and corresponding huge current flows)and,to a lesser extent, those generated by the high-voltage electron guns in video tubes of TVs and computers.PCS involves no overhead lines,no wattages greater than a reading Tamp at the towers(or greater than a kevchain penlight at the handsets), and no video circuits. Safety Standards The safety of PCS and similar frequency fields has been evaluated by a number of professional scientific organizations and government agencies in the United States and around the world including the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers(IEEE);the American National Standards Institute(ANSI),an independent organization that oversees development of standards including those that apply to PCS; and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement(NCRP),a Congressionally • chartered institution. PCS antenna facilities,by design and operation,are low-power devices.This fact combined with the rapid drop-off of energy with distance means that even when all channels are operating at full power(a rare circumstance during routine operation),public exposure is never more than 1,000 times lower than current safety standards. It should be noted that the current ANSI and NCRP standards are set 50 times below a level the scientific community believes may pose a health risk to people.Thus,because exposure at a typical PCS site is 1,000 times lower than current safety standards,each site has a safety margin of more than 50,000. i Interference With Other Devices There have been concerns raised about cellular and PCS systems interfering with devices such as hearing aids or pacemakers. Experts generally agree that all digital devices may cause some level of interference with hearing aids. However,the level of interference varies according to the type of digital technology used in the handset, as well as the type of hearing aid used.For instance,initial testing at the Center for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility at the University of Oklahoma found that the digital technology chosen by Sprint Spectrum — CDMA— caused lower levels of interference than other digital technologies tested. • In any event,all cellular phone makers and cell phone companies are working with the hearing aid makers and users,and with the FCC,to adopt designs that eliminate any hearing aid compatibility problem in any phone equipment in which it can occur. Preliminary results from researchers studying the effects of wireless communications devices on pacemakers indicate that digital wireless telephones cause interference to some users of cardiac pacemakers. The researchers recommend that patients dependent on pacemakers avoid using digital telephones and that nondependent users keep such telephones away from implanted devices. • • •