Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 15, 2013 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: April 17, 2013 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2013-00 Variance for Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks Address: 8385 Groveland Court Applicant: Richard & Laurol Boik, property owners B. CU2013-002 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage Address: 8478 Long Lake Road Applicant: Allen Hambleton, property owner 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss City Code Updates for Renewable Energy Systems 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. June 5, 2013 B. June 19, 2013 8. Review Minutes: A. May 1, 2013 9. Staff Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner’s Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 1, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for May 1, 2013. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Stevenson and Smith. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business A. Recognition of Jean Miller for Her Years of Service on the Planning Commission. Planning Associate Heller explained Commissioner Jean Miller has resigned her position from the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson thanked Commissioner Miller for her 33 years of service to the City of Mounds View. He presented her with a certificate of appreciation and flowers. A round of applause was offered to Commissioner Miller. Index to Minutes Page Special Order of Business 1 Approval of Minutes 2 CU2013-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor 2 Sales and Display Mounds View Planning Commission May 1, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ CU2013-002. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an 3 Auto Repair Business Review Applications for the Planning Commission Vacancy 4 City Code Amendment for Cargo Containers 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes March 20, 2013. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the March 20, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Cases A. CU2013-001 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales and Display Applicant: Northwood Industries, Hayward, WI Address: 2701 County Road 10 Planning Associate Heller indicated Northwood Industries was requesting approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor sales and displays for the property located at 2701 County Road 10. She explained that Northwood Industries is based in Hayward, Wisconsin and manufactures and sells lawn furniture, gazebos, accessory buildings, and small cabins. Associate Heller commented the applicant is looking to open a store in the Twin Cities metro area and are proposing to use an asphalt area on the southeast side of the parking lot for outdoor sales to display gazebos and sheds. It was noted the property is zoned B-3, Highway Business, and City Code allows outdoor sales as a conditional use in the B-3 district. Staff further reviewed the site and recommended the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit with six conditions. Chair Stevenson questioned the parking lot setback from Highway 10. Associate Heller estimated there was a 10-15 foot green space setback. Mounds View Planning Commission May 1, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Carvelli-Yu supported additional outdoor sales and display area for the applicant. Associate Heller explained that allowing more outdoor sales area would require a variance, and could be requested by the applicant in the future if they feel they do need more space. Chair Stevenson asked if the parking lot would be striped. Clair Martin, 10463 Highway 27 in Hayward, Wisconsin, indicated this was discussed with the property owner and he would complete this work. Commissioner Smith requested further information on the proposed building improvements. Mr. Martin discussed how the red and blue windows on the building would be repainted. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve Resolution 976-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit; Planning Case No. CU2013-001. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. CU2013-002 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Auto Repair Business Applicant: North Metro Motors, Ham Lake, Minnesota Address: 2975 County Road 10 Planning Associate Heller commented that Jacob Marrs with North Metro Motors was requesting a conditional use permit to operate an auto repair business at 2975 County Road 10. It was noted the property was zoned B-3, Highway Business. She indicated the applicant has a purchase agreement for the property, and this would be a second location for his auto repair business. Associate Heller reviewed the site further noting the building was constructed for auto related uses and has always been used as auto repair or car rental businesses. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit with conditions. Chair Stevenson recommended an additional condition be added noting that no more than five vehicles may be parked on the property overnight. Associate Heller thanked Chair Stevenson for making this suggestion. Associate Heller noted the parking lot would hold approximately 23-25 vehicles. She requested comment from the applicant on this issue. Mounds View Planning Commission May 1, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Jake Marrs, 456 105th Lane in Coon Rapids, requested he be allowed to have up to 10 cars parked onsite overnight. He stated this would allow for customer pickup and drop off in the evening hours. He explained that a limit of five cars would be difficult for his business to comply with. The Commission was in favor of allowing 10 cars to be parked on the lot. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu inquired if car sales or towing would take place at the Mounds View location. Mr. Marrs indicated that the car sales would only be done at the Ham Lake location due to the size of the parking lot there. He added that the tow trucks would also only be stored at the Ham Lake location as well. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu questioned how lighting on the site would be addressed. Associate Heller commented the existing lighting is minimal and down lit so as not affect the adjacent homeowners. She stated the City Code addresses lighting requirements. Commissioner Schiltgen asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Marrs stated this location would be open Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The business would be closed on Sundays and only open every other Saturday when necessary. Commissioner Smith inquired how many employees would be working out of this location. Mr. Marrs stated there would be two mechanics working at the Mounds View location. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve Resolution 977-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit adding conditions that would limit the number of parked vehicles overnight to 10 and that there be no auto sales at this site; Planning Case No. CU2013-002. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Other Planning Activity A. Review Applications for the Planning Commission Vacancy Planning Associate Heller stated since longtime Commissioner Jean Miller has resigned from the Planning Commission, there was now a vacant seat to fill the remainder of Ms. Miller’s term. The City advertised the vacancy and Staff received three applications. She requested the Planning Commission review each of the applications and make a recommendation to Council. Mounds View Planning Commission May 1, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ She noted one applicant Julianne Love was not able to attend this evening, but the other two candidates were present this evening. Keith Cramblit introduced himself to the Planning Commission stating it would be his privilege and honor to serve on the Commission again. He commented he served for six years previously and missed working with this group. Valerie Amundsen introduced herself to the Planning Commission stating she has lived in the City of Mounds View since 1979. She discussed her previous involvement in the streets committee and wanted to remain involved in the community. She cared a great deal about Mounds View and enjoyed doing volunteer work. She was excited to see the Highway 10 corridor being revitalized. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu asked if Staff has any knowledge of Julianne Love and her interests in the community. Associate Heller noted Ms. Love had applied a couple of years ago. She was extremely interested in sustainability issues. Chair Stevenson commented he was extremely pleased with each of the three applicants and their interest in serving the City. Commissioner Schiltgen thanked each candidate for being willing to volunteer their time. Chair Stevenson questioned how the voting would be conducted. Associate Heller requested that each Commissioner mark their ballot and then she would collect them. Staff counted the ballots and announced there was a tie between two candidates, Keith Cramblit and Julianne Love. The Commission recommended both candidates be passed along to the Council for a final decision. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. City Code Amendment for Cargo Containers Planning Associate Heller stated she had the final revisions made to the Code amendment regarding Cargo Containers. She requested the Commission review the recommended changes and approve the Resolution, which would be forwarded to the City Council in Ordinance format. Chair Stevenson thanked Associate Heller for making all the previously requested revisions. He was pleased with the final document. The Commission agreed. Chair Stevenson asked if the Council had any comments on the code amendment. Associate Heller stated that when she presented this to the Council at a work session meeting, there were only minor changes. Mounds View Planning Commission May 1, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 978-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a City Code Amendment. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. May 15, 2013 B. June 5, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Review Minutes: A. April 17, 2013 The Commission discussed the April 17, 2013 meeting minutes and noted several changes. 10. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She noted the Spring Cleanup would be held on Saturday, May 4th at the Public Works Building from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Additional information regarding this event was posted on the City’s website. 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Miller thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for working with her over the past 30 years. Chair Stevenson indicated Commissioner Miller would be dearly missed by the City of Mounds View. Council Member Gary Meehlhause personally thanked Commissioner Miller for her 33 years on the Planning Commission and 30 years on the Charter Commission. He wished her all the best. 12. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 1, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 15, 2013 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Variance Request to allow for Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks at 8385 Groveland Court; Planning Case VR2013-002 Introduction: The property owners, Richard and Laurol Boik, are requesting a variance to permit an addition to their house at 8385 Groveland Court to encroach two feet into the required 10- foot side yard setback and 4-inches into the existing 25-foot rear yard setback. The Boiks want to build a 16’ x 26’ addition with a covered porch, bedroom and bathroom on the side of their house for Laurol’s mother who has recently moved in. Discussion: The Boik’s house is a multi-level style built in 1978 in the Groveland Court cul-de-sac. The applicant’s lot is a cul-de-sac pie shape that is narrow at the street, but it is an odd six-sided lot that is only about 100 feet deep. When the house was under construction in 1978, the builder misunderstood the City Code and thought a minimum 35 foot front setback was required (30 feet is the minimum). This normally wouldn’t be a problem except that because it is a shallower lot, the house then had only a 25 foot rear setback (30 feet is the required minimum rear setback). Since the City did not require surveys for new homes at the time, this mistake wasn’t discovered until the footing inspection. Since the foundation was already in and the other homes in the cul-de-sac had 35 foot setbacks, the Planning Commission approved a variance for this property to have a 25-foot rear setback. The Boiks bought their house in 1997 and like the home and neighborhood, but Laurol’s mother can no longer live on her own now and recently moved in with the Boiks. The house has multi-levels and the bedrooms are on the upper-most level, so they want to add a bedroom, handicap accessible bathroom and a covered porch to the north end of the house for Mom. This would allow her access to the main areas of the house without having to deal with stairs. Based on the interior layout of the house, the north side is where the addition makes the most sense, and there is no room to expand the house to the rear. The house faces west and is centered on the lot. The garage is on the south end and the proposed addition would be on the north side, 16-feet wide and 26-feet deep (the same depth as the house). The adjacent north neighbor’s house is setback about 35 feet from the shared property line, so even with the Boik’s 16 foot wide addition, there would still be a lot of space between the houses. Because the side property lines angle outward, the addition would have an 8-foot setback at the front corner, but 3-feet back from the corner, the addition would meet the 10-foot setback. This variance request is also for a reduced rear setback. The existing house has a variance for the 25-foot rear setback, but the addition would be expanding on that setback, and would also extend slightly into where one of the rear property lines angles in giving the addition even less than a 25-foot setback. Planning Case VR2013-002 May 15, 2013 Staff Report Page 2 Variance Criteria Review: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum building setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The required setbacks typically can be met, but this lot is oddly shaped and has a very shallow backyard which is causing the difficulty. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties, and certainly encourages home improvements, especially ones that allow families to take care of each other and age in place. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicants want to add a bedroom and full bathroom to the main floor of the house in order for an elderly family member to be able to comfortably live with them and not need to use stairs. This improvement will also allow the homeowners to be able to stay in the home longer and age in place since there would be a main floor bedroom and full bath to use if stairs become difficult for them in the future. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The unique circumstances which apply to this property are that a 25-foot rear setback is much less than normal and less than the City Code requires, and the six- sided lot with five of the property lines being angled makes it difficult to meet setbacks. Most other property owners could build additions on the rear of their homes and meet the 30 foot rear setback requirement. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The 2-foot side setback and 5-foot 6-inch rear setback variances requested are the minimum that would be necessary in order to add the desired interior square footage and keep the exterior house style and roof lines aesthetically pleasing. Planning Case VR2013-002 May 15, 2013 Staff Report Page 3 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In order to have enough square footage for the intent of the addition, the 2-foot side yard setback variance is the minimum variance needed. The 5-foot 6-inch rear yard setback variance is the minimum needed to match the existing house setback and deal with the angles of the property lines. g. The Planning Commission may impose such 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. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff does not have any suggested conditions for this variance request. Public Hearing: As with any variance application, a public hearing is required. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s properties. As of May 10, 2013, Staff has not received any comments. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 979-13 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Proposed Site Plans 4. Narrative from Builder 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 979-13 * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N ZONING MAP Aerial View of 8385 Groveland Court Aerial View of 8385 Groveland Court 8385 Addition Site Plan for 8385 Groveland Court Addition N Garage House Site Plan for 8385 Groveland Court Addition Addition – the covered porch is on the front Addition area – bedroom, full bath, walk-in closet and covered porch on front Addition Plan for 8385 Groveland Court Narrative from Builder Photographic Documentation 8385 Groveland Court North neighbor’s house Applicant’s house Approximate area of addition North neighbor’s house View of backyard of 8385 Groveland Court MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 979-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LIVING SPACE ADDITION TO HAVE AN 8-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND A 24 FOOT-6 INCH REAR YARD SETBACK AT 8385 GROVELAND COURT; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2013-002 WHEREAS, property owners, Richard and Laurol Boik, have applied for a variance to allow a house addition to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback and 5 feet 6 inches into the required 30 foot rear yard setback at 8385 Groveland Court; and, WHEREAS, 8385 Groveland Court is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block 1, Groveland Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-21-0028 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Proposed Site and Addition Plans 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Views 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on May 15, 2013; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 8385 Groveland Court, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between homes for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The requested reduced side yard setback will still give over 30 feet of building separation and the requested reduced rear setback is almost the same as on the existing house. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property and making it more livable for their family. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because of the shallow lot and angled property lines. 4. The unique feature of this property is that the backyard is only 25 feet deep and the property is narrow in the front with angled side property lines. There are very few properties in the city that have this type of shape or do not have at least a 30 foot rear yard setback. 5. The current house has had a 25 foot rear setback since it was built in 1978, and there is and will continue to be a large side yard separation between the applicant’s house and the adjacent neighbor even with the addition, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 2-foot side yard variance and 5-foot 6-inch rear yard variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for living space setbacks. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Richard and Laurol Boik, to allow a living space addition to have an 8-foot north side setback and a 24-foot 6-inch rear yard setback at 8385 Groveland Court subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 15th day of May, 2013. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Res. 979-13 Page 2 Item No: 5B Meeting Date: May 15, 2013 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8478 Long Lake Road; Planning Case CU2013- 003 Introduction: The applicant, Allen Hambleton, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an oversize detached garage on his property at 8478 Long Lake Road. The applicant wants to build a new 22’x56’ detached garage (1,232 square feet) behind the existing detached garage. The applicant has submitted plans for a garage larger than what the City Code allows without a planning action. The City limits the size of accessory buildings, whether attached or detached from the house, to a maximum of 952 square feet. Any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The garage the applicant is proposing would be 1,232 square feet. The applicant indicates that he wants the extra space to store trailers, snowmobiles, ATV’s and a boat, among other things, and then be able to use the existing garage to park his vehicles. He plans to add a driveway leading to the new garage that connects to his current driveway. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings, the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings and specifies roof style and pitch. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages exceeding 952 square feet. The garage must be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,232 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The proposed garage would meet all City setback, height and accessory building coverage requirements. The City Code limits backyard building coverage to 20% of the yard area and this garage would use approximately 8% of the backyard area. The total accessory building square feet with the existing garage and the new garage would be 1,783 square feet which is below the maximum of 1,800 square feet limit. Allen Hambleton CUP Request May 15, 2013 Page 2 The City Code also specifies that the roof for all accessory buildings exceeding 250 square feet, shall match or be similar to the character and style of the roof of the principal structure, and have a pitch or slope of at least 2-12, but no steeper than 12-12. The proposed garage has a 4-12 pitch which does not match the very steep pitch of the house, but is similar to the pitch of the existing detached garage. Over the last several years, one of the conditions for oversize garages has typically been that the garage have a uniform appearance with the house. The Planning Commission should discuss if this condition should be included, and if so, would the proposed garage be acceptable. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects of a conditional use that include, but are not limited to, the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Staff has addressed each of these potential adverse effects below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low-density residential, as well as the surrounding area. The Comp Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. W ith this project, the applicant would be creating more garage space to have more indoor storage for his recreational vehicles. Such additional storage would be a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s home is located on Long Lake Road along the north border of the City. There are no homes across the street from the applicant in this area. Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage, as well as in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The applicant’s neighborhood is entirely single-family residential. The homes in this area are a variety of styles, ages and lot sizes. The new garage would be in the backyard, behind the existing 2-car garage. It would not be obvious from the street but would be visible to the adjacent backyard neighbors. This is a larger property at 100 feet wide and 260 feet deep (0.59 acres), so the oversize garage will only use about 8% of the backyard area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a 1,232 square foot garage that would allow for parking his recreational vehicles and boat inside plus additional storage space, and then be able to use the existing garage to park his daily driving vehicles. Allen Hambleton CUP Request May 15, 2013 Page 3 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions below related to the request. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit. 1. Recommend approval of the CUP as requested. Staff has prepared Resolution 980-13 that approves the conditional use permit if the Commission chooses this action. 2. Choose to deny the conditional use permit. If the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide that there is need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site Plan 4. Photos 5. Resolution 980-13 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential County Road H2 N New Garage New house here now N Aerial View Site Plan Example of Proposed Garage Style Photos View of front of property from street View of backyard area where new garage would be View of backyard area where new garage would be MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 980-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,232 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 8478 LONG LAKE ROAD ; PLANNING CASE CU2013-003 WHEREAS, property owner Allen Hambleton has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,232 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8478 Long Lake Road, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Balk’s Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 06-30-23-12-0124 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,232 square feet, thus requiring City approval of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Zoning Map b. Aerial View c. Site plan d. Photographic documentation e. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed oversized 1,232 square foot garage satisfies the zoning requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. Resolution 980-13 Page 2 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,232 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The new garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. 3. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY 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 15th day of May, 2013. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: May 15, 2013 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discuss City Code Updates for Renewable Energy Systems At the April 15, 2013 the Planning Commission started the discussion on reviewing the Zoning Code in regards to development and renewable energy. The City wants to update the City Code to help promote renewable energy systems and not make it difficult for a property owner to install a system. The City is able to get technical assistance through the end of May for free through the Minnesota Solar Challenge, so we are going to work on this code update first. Brian Ross, from CR Planning, Inc. will be attending the Planning Commission meeting on May 15th to talk about the changes Cities are making to their City Codes and help us move towards code amendments. He is part of the Minnesota Solar Challenge which provides support for communities across Minnesota that may be interested in capturing the benefit of their local solar energy resource. The partners are working with communities to implement local government best practices in permitting and zoning. I have attached information about solar energy standards and some ordinance examples from other cities to review. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Information about the MN Solar Challenge 2. Solar Energy Standards 3. Mounds View’s Zoning Code for Solar Energy and Wind Generator Systems 4. Maplewood’s Renewable Energy Systems Ordinance 5. Mahtomedi’s Renewable Energy Zoning Code What is the Minnesota Solar Challenge? The Minnesota Solar Challenge provides support for communities across Minnesota that maf be interested in capturing the beneyfft of their local solar energf resource.Minnesota Solar Challenge partners will work with communities across Minnesota until Februar y 2013 to implement local government best practices in permitting and zoning. The project aims to create an economically self-sustaining solar energy industr y and opportunities for homeowners and businesses to more efectively use their solar energy resource. Non-hardware costs such as permitting, installation, design, and maintenance currently account for up to 40 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop solar photovoltaic systems in the United States. Lowering these costs is an important part of growing the solar energy industr y so that it can create new jobs for American workers, improve U.S. energy security, and provide clean, renewable energy for American families and businesses. What are “best practices”? Local governments have a number of opportunities for advancing solar energf resources and promoting the development of a solar energf industrf. Best practices for local governments include standardizing permitting processes for addressing solar technologies, updating land use policies and zoning codes, and increasing access to ffffinancing. Incorporating such best practices into local government operations can enable property owners to capture their solar resource consistent with community land use, aesthetic, and safety standards. What assistance is being offered? The Minnesota Solar Challenge is oiering free technical assistance to communities who want to investigate adopting local government best practices for enabling solar energf development. Best practices focus on: n Removing barriers in local permitting processes (building and electric) n Understanding and adopting reasonable permit fees charged to solar installations n Ensuring that land use regulation (including comprehensive plan language and zoning) treats solar energy installations fairly and consistently with other similar land uses Solar means business for four local government See other side for details on assistance. Technical assistance can include: At least 20 communities will receive direct technical assistance implementing solar energf best practices. n Workshops detailing the local government best practices and how to adapt the best practices n Working directly with decision makers and staf to explain the value of solar n Presenting and discussing local best practices directly with commissions, staf and elected oicials n Helping individual cities, counties or townships investigate how the best practices ffffit into existing processes and regulations n Writing draft language or guidance documents for permitting and land use standards to ffffit the local conditions and circumstances How does my community sign up? Take action todaf! Workshops are being held throughout the fall and winter in 2012 and 2013 across Minnesota, and you can ffffill out a brief questionnaire online if you’re interested in receiving direct technical assistance. Visit mncerts.org/solarchallenge to learn more, register for events, and get assistance before Februarf 2013. The Minnesota Solar Challenge is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Visit mncer ts.org/solarchallenge to learn more Minnesota Solar Challenge local government partners: Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 1 Solar Energy Standards INTRODUCTION In spite of its cold and dark reputation, Minnesota has good solar potential, as good as Houston, Texas and many parts of Florida. As solar energy system components have become more efficient and less costly an increasing number of solar energy installations have been installed in Minnesota. Since 2005, the interest in solar energy has rapidly increased such that many communities have had to address solar installations as a land use issue. Solar energy components continue to improve in efficiency and decline in price; the U.S. Department of Energy forecasts that solar energy will start to reach cost parity with retail electric costs by 2016. But solar energy is much more than an alternative (or supplement) to utility power. Solar energy has become a symbol of energy self-sufficiency and environmental sustainability. The growth in solar installations is attribut- able more to the non-economic benefits than as an economic substitute for the electric utility. Households and businesses wanting to reduce their carbon footprint see solar energy as a strong complement to energy effi- ciency. Volatility in natural gas prices makes free solar fuel look attractive as a price hedge. Solar energy issues Local governments will need to address solar energy installations in their development regulation in the near future. Three primary issues tie solar energy to development regulations: 1) Climate protection goals. Local governments that have committed to meeting climate protection goals can meet some of their commitment by removing regulatory barriers to solar energy and incorporating low or no-cost incentives in development regulations to spur solar investment. 2) Nuisance and safety considerations. Solar energy systems have few nuisances, but visual impacts and safety concerns by neighbors sometimes create opposition to solar installations. Good design and attention to aesthetics can answer most concerns. But the misperception that solar energy systems are ugly and unsafe, rooted in poorly designed 1970s solar installations, have resulted in unnecessary regulation or outright prohibitions. 3) Solar access considerations. In fully built-out communities and large lot suburban or exurban areas, solar access is of limited concern. Solar access is, however, an important consideration in zoning districts that allow tall buildings or in developing communities where subdivisions should incorporate solar access provisions. Model Solar Energy Standards This ordinance is based primarily on the model solar energy ordinance created for Solar Min- nesota, under a Million Solar Roofs grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. It has been updated several times to reflect different needs of Minnsota communities and the evolving solar industry, last updated Feburary, 2013 Model Sustainable Development Ordinances2 Solar Energy Standards Components of a solar standards ordinance Solar energy standards should consider the following elements: • Remove regulatory barriers and create a clear regulatory path to approving solar energy systems. • Limit aesthetic objections by setting reasonable design standards for solar energy in urban neighborhoods, historic districts, and new subdivisions. • Address solar access issues in subdivisions and zoning districts that allow taller buildings on smaller (urban density) lots. • Encourage solar-ready subdivision and building design. • Incorporate regulatory incentives that can spur private-sector solar investment. Urban and rural communities The model ordinance language addresses concerns that are primarily in cities rather than counties or townships. Issues of solar access and nuisances associated with solar energy systems are generally of little consequence outside urban density areas, where lot sizes are almost always greater than one acre. Counties and townships can address most barriers by simply stating in their development regulations that solar energy systems are an allowed accessory use in all districts. Aesthetic issues or solar access issues might come into play in lakeshore areas or conservation development areas, where homes are closer together or protected trees might limit solar access. The incentive potion of the model ordinance can also be applied in rural areas. However, most of the language in this model ordinance is directed to situations seen in cities. Primary and accessory uses This ordinance addresses solar energy as an accessory use to the primary residential or commercial use in an urban area. Solar energy systems are also sometimes the primary use, on “solar farms” that are large arrays of hundreds or thousands of kilowatts of ground or pole-mounted systems, or in the case of solar thermal power plants, such as seen in the desert southwest. These land uses have different issues and need to be addressed in a substantially different manner than discussed in this model. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 3 Solar Energy Standards Climate Protection Strategies Solar energy should be part of every commu- nity’s portfolio for addressing climate change or energy transitions (also known as “peak oil”) considerations. Local governments that are par- ticipating in the Cities for Climate Protection program, Mayor’s Climate Protection signato- ries, or the Cool Cities/Cool Counties program can use private solar investment as a vehicle for meeting goals. Additional community benefits that improve sustainability are also spelled out in the findings section. I. Scope - This article applies to all solar energy installations in Model Community. II. Purpose - Model Community has adopted this regulation for the following purposes: A. Comprehensive Plan Goals - To meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the Community’s citizens by promote the safe, effective and efficient use of ac- tive solar energy systems installed to reduce the on-site consumption of fossil fuels or utility-supplied electric energy. The following solar energy standards specifically implement the following goals from the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Goal – Encourage the use of local renewable energy resources, including appropriate applications for wind, solar, and biomass energy. 2. Goal – Promote sustainable building design and management practices in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings to serve the needs of current and future generations. 3. Goal – Assist local businesses to lower financial and regulatory risks and improve their economic, community, and environmental sustainability. 4. Goal – Efficiently invest in and manage public infrastructure systems to support development and growth. B. Climate Change Goals - As a signatory of the Cool Cities program, Model Community has commit- ted to reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Solar energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy resource and that its conversion to electricity or heat will reduce our depen- dence on nonrenewable energy resources and decrease the air and water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources. C. Infrastructure - Distributed solar photovoltaic systems will enhance the reliability and power quality of the power grid and make more efficient use of Model Community’s electric distribution infrastructure. D. Local Resource - Solar energy is an under used local energy resource and encouraging the use of solar energy will diversify the community’s energy supply portfolio and exposure to fiscal risks associ- ated with fossil fuels. E. Improve Competitive Markets - Solar energy systems offer additional energy choice to consumers and will improve competition in the electricity and natural gas supply market. Comprehensive Plan Goals Tying the solar energy ordinance to Comprehen- sive Plan goals is particularly important when the solar standards include regulatory incentives or solar requirements as described in the last section of this ordinance. If the Comprehensive Plan does not include goals that could address solar energy, and the community does not have some of policy foundation for encouraging pri- vate investment in solar energy (such as climate protection goals) the community should consider creating a local energy plan. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances4 Solar Energy Standards III. Definitions Active Solar Energy System - A solar energy system whose primary purpose is to harvest energy by transforming solar energy into another form of energy or transferring heat from a collector to another medium using mechanical, electrical, or chemical means. Building-integrated Solar Energy Systems - An active solar energy system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building-integrated systems include but are not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems that are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. Grid-intertie Solar Energy System - A photovoltaic solar energy system that is connected to an electric circuit served by an electric utility company. Off-grid Solar Energy System - A photovoltaic solar energy system in which the circuits energized by the solar energy system are not electrically connected in any way to electric circuits that are served by an electric utility company. Passive Solar Energy System - A solar energy system that captures solar light or heat without transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger. Photovoltaic System - An active solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into electricity. Renewable Energy Easement, Solar Energy Easement - An easement that limits the height or location, or both, of permissible development on the burdened land in terms of a structure or vegeta- tion, or both, for the purpose of providing access for the benefited land to wind or sunlight passing over the burdened land. Renewable Energy System - A solar energy or wind energy system. Renewable energy systems do not include passive systems that serve a dual function, such as a greenhouse or window. Roof Pitch - The final exterior slope of a building roof calculated by the rise over the run, typically but not exclusively expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12. Solar Access - A view of the sun, from any point on the collector surface, that is not obscured by any vegetation, building, or object for a minimum of four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Standard time on any day of the year. Solar Definitions Not all these terms are used in this model ordinance, nor is this a complete list of solar definitions. As a community develops its own design standards for solar technology, many of the concepts defined here may be helpful in meet- ing local goals. For instance, solar daylighting devices may change the exterior appearance of the building, and the community may choose to distinguish between these devices and other archi- tectural changes. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 5 Solar Energy Standards Solar Collector - A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the primary purpose is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energy. Solar Collector Surface - Any part of a solar collector that absorbs solar energy for use in the collector’s energy transformation process. Collector surface does not include frames, supports and mounting hardware. Solar Daylighting - A device specifically designed to capture and redirect the visible portion of the solar spectrum, while controlling the infrared portion, for use in illuminating interior building spaces in lieu of artificial lighting. Solar Energy - Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or light by a solar collector. Solar Energy Device - A system or series of mechanisms designed primarily to provide heating, cooling, electrical power, mechanical power, solar daylighting or to provide any combination of the foregoing by means of collecting and transferring solar generated energy into such uses either by active or passive means. Such systems may also have the capability of storing such energy for future utilization. Passive solar energy systems shall clearly be designed as a solar energy device such as a trombe wall and not merely a part of a normal structure such as a window. Solar Energy System - A device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generating, or water heating. Solar Heat Exchanger - A component of a solar energy device that is used to transfer heat from one substance to another, either liquid or gas. Solar Hot Air System - (also referred to as Solar Air Heat or Solar Furnace) – An active solar energy system that includes a solar collector to provide direct supplemental space heating by heating and re-circulating conditioned building air. The most efficient performance typically means vertically mounted on a south-facing wall. Solar Hot Water System (also referred to as Solar Thermal) - A system that includes a solar collec- tor and a heat exchanger that heats or preheats water for building heating systems or other hot water needs, including residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial processes. Solar Mounting Devices - Racking, frames, or other devices that allow the mounting of a solar collector onto a roof surface or the ground. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances6 Solar Energy Standards Solar Storage Unit - A component of a solar energy device that is used to store solar generated electricity or heat for later use. IV. Permitted Accessory Use - Active solar energy systems shall be allowed as an accessory use in all zoning classifications where structures of any sort are allowed, subject to certain requirements as set forth below. Active solar energy systems that do not meet the visibility standards in C. below will require a conditional use permit, except as provided in Section V. (Administrative Variances). A. Height - Active solar energy systems must meet the following height requirements: 1. Building- or roof- mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed the maximum allowed height in any zoning district. For purposes for height measurement, solar energy systems other than building-integrated systems shall be given an equivalent exception to height standards as building- mounted mechanical devices or equipment. 2. Ground- or pole-mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 20 feet in height when oriented at maximum tilt. B. Set-back - Active solar energy systems must meet the accessory structure setback for the zoning district and primary land use associated with the lot on which the system is located. 1. Roof-mounted Solar energy systems - In addition to the building setback, the collector surface and mounting devices for roof-mounted solar energy systems shall not extend beyond the exte- rior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted or built, unless the collector and mounting system has been explicitly engineered to safely extend beyond the edge, and setback standards are not violated. Exterior piping for solar hot water systems shall be allowed to extend beyond the perimeter of the building on a side yard exposure. 2. Ground-mounted Solar energy systems - Ground-mounted solar energy systems may not extend into the side-yard or rear setback when oriented at minimum design tilt. C. Visibility - Active solar energy systems shall be designed to blend into the architecture of the building or be screened from routine view from public right-of-ways other than alleys. The color of the solar collector is not required to be consistent with other roofing materials. 1. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems - Building integrated photovoltaic solar energy systems shall be allowed regardless of whether the system is visible from the public right-of-way, provided the building component in which the system is integrated meets all required setback, land use or performance standards for the district in which the building is located. 2. Solar Energy Systems with Mounting Devices - Solar energy systems using roof mounting Building Integrated PV Building integrated solar energy systems can include solar energy systems built into roofing (existing technology includes both solar shingles and solar roofing tiles), into awnings, skylights, and walls. This ordinance only addresses build- ing integrated PV, but examples of building integrated solar thermal applications may also be available. Roof-Mounted Solar Energy Systems This ordinance sets a threshold for solar panels that they not be steeper than the finished roof pitch. Mounted systems steeper than the fin- ished roof pitch change the appearance of the roof, and sometimes create additional consider- ations in regard to the wind and drift load on structural roof components. Safety risks can be mitigated through structural review or roof structure modification if the aesthetic impacts are not a concern to the community. Height - Ground or Pole Mounted This ordinance sets a 20-foot height limit, as- suming a standard that is higher than typical height limits for accessory structures, but lower than the principal structure. Communities may want to consider balancing height with setback, allowing taller systems if set back farther, for instance, an extra foot of height for every addi- tional two feet of setback. Height - Rooftop System This ordinance notes exceptions to the height standard when other exceptions are granted in the ordinance. Communities should directly reference the exception language, rather than use the placeholder language here. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 7 Solar Energy Standards devices or ground-mount solar energy systems shall not be restricted if the system is not visible from the closest edge of any public right-of-way other than an alley. Roof-mount systems that are visible from the nearest edge of the street frontage right-of-way shall not have a highest finished pitch steeper than the roof pitch on which the system is mounted, and shall be no higher than twelve (12) inches above the roof. 3. Coverage - Roof or building mounted solar energy systems, excluding building-integrated Design Guidelines for Solar Roofs Pitched Roof bracket-mounted panels steeper than roof pitch flush-mount panels li n e o f s i g h t Design Guidelines for Solar Roofs Flat Roof bracket-mounted panels visible from street bracket-mounted panels not visible from street bracket-mounted panels hidden by parapet not visible from street li n e o f s i g h t systems, shall allow for adequate roof access to the south- facing or flat roof upon which the panels are mounted. The surface area of pole or ground mount systems shall not exceed half the building footprint of the principal structure. 4. Historic Buildings - Solar energy systems on buildings within designated historic districts or on locally designated historic buildings (exclusive of State or Fedferal historic des- ignation) will require an administrative variance, as provided in this ordinance. D. Approved Solar Components - Electric solar energy system components must have a UL listing and solar hot water systems must have an SRCC rating. E. Plan Approval Required - All solar energy systems shall re- quire administrative plan approval by Model Community zoning official. 1. Plan Applications - Plan applications for solar energy systems shall be accompanied by to-scale horizontal and vertical (elevation) drawings. The drawings must show the location of the system on the building or on the property for a ground-mount system, including the property lines. a. Pitched Roof Mounted Solar Energy Systems - For all roof-mounted systems other than a flat roof the elevation must show the highest finished slope of the solar collector and the slope of the finished roof surface on which it is mounted. b. Flat Roof Mounted Solar Energy Systems - For flat Coverage Roof coverage limitations are generally not neces- sary, as some of the roof is likely to be shaded or otherwise not suitable for solar energy. Coverage is an issue of concern in order to ensure ready roof access in the event of a fire. Coverage limits can be a percentage limition, such as 80% of the total south-facing roof, or a required setback from one or more edges. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances8 Solar Energy Standards roof applications a drawing shall be submitted showing the distance to the roof edge and any parapets on the building and shall identify the height of the building on the street frontage side, the shortest distance of the system from the street frontage edge of the building, and the highest finished height of the solar collector above the finished surface of the roof. 2. Plan Approvals - Applications that meet the design requirements of this ordinance, and do not require an administrative variance, shall be granted administrative approval by the zoning official and shall not require Planning Commission review. Plan approval does not indicate compliance with Building Code or Electric Code. F. Compliance with Building Code - All active solar energy systems shall meet approval of local building code officials, consistent with the State of Minnesota Building Code, and solar thermal systems shall comply with HVAC-related requirements of the Energy Code. G. Compliance with State Electric Code - All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the Minnesota State Electric Code. H. Compliance with State Plumbing Code - Solar thermal systems shall comply with applicable Min- nesota State Plumbing Code requirements. I. Utility Notification - All grid-intertie solar energy systems shall comply with the interconnection requirements of the electric utility. Off-grid systems are exempt from this requirement. V. Administrative Variance - Model Community encourages the installation of productive solar energy systems and recognizes that a balance must be achieved between character and aesthetic considerations and the reasonable desire of building owners to harvest their renewable energy resources. Where the standards in Section IV. A., B., or C. cannot be met without diminishing, as defined below, the minimum reasonable performance of the solar energy system, an administrative variance may be sought from the zoning official. An administrative variance shall be granted if the administrative variance standards are met. A. Minimum Performance Design Standards - The following design thresholds are necessary for efficient operation of a solar energy system: 1. Fixed-Mount Active Solar Energy Systems - Solar energy systems must be mounted to face with 45 degrees of south (180 degrees azimuth). 2. Solar electric (photovoltaic) systems must have a pitch that is within 20 degrees of latitude, a pitch of between 20 and 65 degrees. Administrative Variance This model language uses an administrative vari- ance process to balance between aesthetic design considerations and the building owner’s choice to use the property for generating renewable en- ergy. Administrative variances allow staff to departures from the design standards when such departures are necessary in order to allow for efficient harvest of solar energy, without having to get Planning Commission approval or pay ad- ditional fees. The administrative variance stan- dards spell out the conditions that staff would use to judge if the system genuinely could not be designed consistently with Section IV. (such as a lack of solar access except on the front of the building), and the metrics by which staff would judge screening or visual integration with the building. Some communities will have other means to allow this, or will have a conditional use permit process that does not create burden- some additional regulation. Restrictions on Solar Energy Systems One of the most common barriers to solar energy in developing areas are restrictive covenants in new subdivisions. The covenants are intended to maintain an the appearance of homes, property values, and saleability. If, however, the local gov- ernment provides solar design standards that pro- tect against poor design of solar accessory uses, it is reasonable to prevent the developer or hom- eowner’s association from creating unwarranted restrictions on a sustainable source of energy. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 9 Solar Energy Standards 3. Solar Hot Water Systems - Solar collectors need to be mounted at a pitch between 40 and 60 degrees. B. Standards for an Administrative Variance - A variance shall be granted by the zoning official if the applicant demonstrates that the following safety, performance and aesthetic conditions are met: 1. Aesthetic Conditions - The solar energy system must be designed to blend into the architecture of the building or be screened from routine view from public right-of-ways other than alleys to the maximum extent possible while still allowing the system to be mounted for efficient performance. 2. Safety Conditions - All applicable health and safety standards are met. 3. Non-Tracking Ground-Mounted Systems - Pole-mounted or ground-mounted active solar energy systems must be set back from the property line by one foot. VI. Restrictions on Solar Energy Systems Limited - No homeowners’ agreement, covenant, common interest community, or other contract between multiple property owners within a subdivision of Model Community shall restrict or limit solar energy systems to a greater extent than Model Community’ solar energy standards. VII. Solar Access - Model Community encourages solar access to be protected in all new subdivisions and allows for existing solar to be protected consistent with Minnesota Statutes. A. Model Community has elected to allow solar easements to be filed, consistent with Minnesota Stat. Chapter 500 Section 30. Any building owner can purchase an easement across neighboring properties to protect access to sunlight. The easement is purchased from or granted by owners of neighboring properties and can apply to buildings, trees, or other structures that would diminish solar access. B. Model Community may require new subdivisions to identify and create solar easements when solar energy systems are implemented as a condition of a PUD, subdivision, conditional use, or other permit, as specified in Section 8 of this ordinance. VIII. Renewable Energy Condition for Certain Permits A. Condition for Rezoning or Conditional Use Permit - Model Community may, in an area where the Solar Easements Minnesota allows the purchase and holding of easements protecting access to solar and wind energy. The easement must specify the following information: Required Contents - Any deed, will, or other instrument that creates a solar or wind easement shall include, but the contents are not limited to: (a) A description of the real property subject to the easement and a description of the real property benefiting from the solar or wind easement; and (b) For solar easements, a description of the vertical and horizontal angles, expressed in degrees and measured from the site of the so- lar energy system, at which the solar easement extends over the real property subject to the easement, or any other description which de- fines the three dimensional space, or the place and times of day in which an obstruction to direct sunlight is prohibited or limited; (c) A description of the vertical and horizontal angles, expressed in degrees, and distances from the site of the wind power system in which an obstruction to the winds is prohib- ited or limited; (d) Any terms or conditions under which the easement is granted or may be terminated; (e) Any provisions for compensation of the owner of the real property benefiting from the easement in the event of interference with the enjoyment of the easement, or compensation of the owner of the real property subject to the easement for maintaining the easement; (f) Any other provisions necessary or desirable to execute the instrument. Source: Minnesota Stat. 500.30 Subd. 3. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances10 Solar Energy Standards local electric distribution system was installed more than twenty years ago, or where the local electric utility has documented a near-term need for additional distribution substation or conductor capacity, require on-site renewable energy systems as a condition for a rezoning or a conditional use permit. 1. The renewable energy condition may only be exercised for new construction or major reconstruc- tion projects. 2. The renewable energy condition may only be exercised for sites that have 90% unimpeded solar or wind energy access, and for which the renewable energy system can reasonably meet all perfor- mance standards and building code requirements. B. Condition for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approval - Model Community may require on- site renewable energy systems as a condition for approval of a PUD permit, in order to mitigate for: 1. Risk to the performance of the local electric distribution system, 2. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases, 3. Other risks or effects inconsistent with Model Community’s Comprehensive Plan. IX. Solar Roof Incentives - Model Community has identified the following incentives for development applications or subdivisions that will include buildings using active solar energy systems. A. Density Bonus - Any application for subdivision of land in the ___ Districts that will allow the development of at least four new lots of record shall be allowed to increase the maximum number of lots by 10% or one lot, whichever is greater, provided all building and wastewater setbacks can be met with the increased density, if the applicant enters into a development agreement guaranteeing at each one kilowatt of PV or 64 square feet of solar hot water collector installed for each new residence. B. Vacant Lot Preference - When Model Community disposes of vacant parcels of land that are under City ownership through auction, Model Community shall award a 10% bid preference up to $5,000 for every kilowatt of solar capacity that is to be incorporated into the fully-built out parcel, when awarding the bid. The bidder must also meet all land use and dimensional requirements, and must post a bond for the amount of the bid preference granted. C. Combined Building Code Permit - On an existing building that is being retrofit with a solar energ y system, Model Community shall charge no more than one permit fee for a solar energy system that meets the administrative approval requirements of this ordinance. D. Solar Access Variance - On a site where the solar access standards of the subdivision ordinance are difficult to meet due to topography or road connectivity, the zoning administrator shall grant an Solar Roof Incentives This section of the model ordinance includes a series of incentives that can be incorporated into development regulation. Most cities and many counties make requirements or use incentives to ensure that certain public amenities are included in development. These same tools and incentives can be used to encourage private investment in solar energy. Communities will not want to use all these incentives, but should select which ones make the most sense in their community (or cre- ate some other incentive that encourages solar energy). As with any incentive, an important ele- ment of creating the incentive is to engage plan- ning or economic development staff in the cre- ation of the incentive, so that staff can assist the developer in taking advantage of the provisions. Renewable Energy Conditions (previous page) The community can use traditional development tools such as conditional use permits, PUDs, or other discretionary permits to encourage private investment in solar energy systems. This model ordinance notes these opportunities for consid- eration by local governments. In most cases, additional ordinance language would need to be inserted into the community’s ordinances. For instance, a provision that PUDs incorporate so- lar energy would need to be included in the com- munity’s PUD ordinance, or if a condition of a CUP was to make the building solar-ready, this would need to be included in the conditional use permit section of the ordinance. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 11 Solar Energy Standards administrative exception from the solar access standards provided the applicant meets the following conditions: 1. Solar Access Lots Identified - At least __% of the lots, or a minimum of __ lots, are identified as solar development lots. 2. Covenant Assigned - Solar access lots are assigned a covenant that homes built upon these lots must include an active solar energy system. Photovoltaic systems must be at least one (1) KW in capacity and solar thermal systems must have at least 64 square feet of collector area. 3. Additional Fees Waived - Model Community will waive any additional fees for filing of the covenant. E. Affordable Housing Offset - On a site where 90% of the potential solar access is unimpeded, and the local electrical distribution system was installed more than twenty years ago, Model Community may substitute a requirement for grid-intertie photovoltaic systems or active solar thermal systems for up to 50% of the affordable housing requirement. For each unit of affordable housing for which a solar energy substitution is made: 1. The photovoltaic system must have at least 2 kilowatts (KW) of capacity with 90% unobstructed solar access. 2. The active solar thermal system must be sized and have sufficient solar access to generate 75% of the estimated domestic hot water load for a family of four. F. Commercial Parking Requirement Offset - On a site where 90% of the potential solar access is unimpeded, and which has access to mass transit within a block of the development site or which has an approved Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan, or which has entered into a shared parking arrangement with another commercial business that has distinct peak parking profiles, Model Com- munity may substitute a requirement for grid-intertie photovoltaic systems or an active solar thermal systems for up to 50% of the parking requirement, up to a maximum of 5 spaces. For each parking space for which a solar energy substitution is made: 1. The photovoltaic system must have at least one (1) kilowatt (KW) of capacity with 90% unob- structed solar access; or 2. An active solar thermal system must have at least 64 square feet of solar collector, and must have sufficient summer load to utilize collector output. Current Mounds View City Code for Solar Energy and Wind Generator Systems 1103.04: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES: Subd. 1. Qualification: To qualify as a solar energy system, the system must be permanently located for not less than ninety (90) days in any calendar year beginning with the first calendar year after completion of construction. Passive solar energy systems are included but not to the extent that they fulfill only recreational uses. Subd. 2. Conditional Use: Solar energy systems and solar structures shall be permitted by conditional use in all districts; provided, that the system and/or structure is in compliance with minimum lot requirements and setbacks and meets the requirements of subdivision 1125.01(3) of this Title, but in no event shall a conditional use permit be granted for a solar energy system or structure which, when installed, would prevent abutting properties from being developed in conformance with all applicable codes or regulations. Subd. 3. Casting of Shadows: No owner, occupier or person in control of property shall allow vegetation or structures to be placed so as to cast a shadow on a solar energy system which is greater than the shadow cast by a hypothetical wall ten feet (10') high located along the boundary of said property between the hours of nine thirty o'clock (9:30) A.M. and two thirty o'clock (2:30) P.M. Central Standard Time on December 21; provided, however, this standard shall not apply to vegetation or structures which cast a shadow upon the solar energy system at the time of installation of said solar energy system or to vegetation existing at the time of installation of said solar energy system. Subd. 4. Violation Declared Nuisance: Violation of this standard shall constitute a private nuisance, and any owner or occupant whose solar energy system is shaded because of such violation so that performance of the system is impaired may have in tort for the damages sustained thereby and may have such nuisance abated. (1988 Code §40.04) 1103.05: WIND GENERATOR SYSTEMS: Subd. 1. Height: The height of a wind generator system shall not exceed thirty feet (30') above the height of the principal structure. Subd. 2. Anchorage: Anchorage of the system's tower shall not be located within ten feet (10') of the property line. Subd. 3. Protection from Climbing: The tower or support for the system shall be of climbproof design or protected by fencing. Subd. 4. Compliance with Other Laws: Location and height must be in accordance with all other governing jurisdictions and laws as they exist and are amended. Subd. 5. Noise: The system shall have a silent operation and be subject to the requirements of Chapter 604, Nuisances, of this Code. Subd. 6. Plans and Specifications: All systems will require plans, specifications and a site plan approved by a registered engineer or architect if deemed necessary by the City. (1988 Code §40.04)