Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 10222018 If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.         Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items: I. Approval of the October 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the August 27, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (action requested) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a variance to allow for the construction of a pool and accessory structure at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace-recommendation to table this public hearing. B. Consider Ordinance 2018-01 an amended ordinance related to decks. IV. Staff Reports. V. Other Business. A. Review recommendations related to the city’s current solar ordinance by Solsmart. VI. Community Forum. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the Planning Commission will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. VII. Information and Announcements. VIII. Adjournment. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 22, 2018 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 August 27, 2018 3 7:00 p.m. 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 7 Chairperson Papatola called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 8 9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 10 11 Chairperson Papatola invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 12 13 ROLL CALL. 14 15 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Papatola, Commissioners Kalar, Larson, Neumann, and 16 Socha. 17 18 Absent: Commissioners Bartel and Westrick 19 20 Also Present: City Planner Erin Perdu 21 22 23 I. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 27, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 24 AGENDA. 25 26 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Kalar, to approve the August 27 27, 2018 Planning Commission agenda. 28 29 Motion carried 5-0. 30 31 II. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 25, 2018 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 32 MEETING MINUTES. 33 34 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the June 25, 35 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. 36 37 Motion carried 5-0. 38 39 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 40 41 A. Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Dynamic Display 42 Electronic Sign and a variance to the required setback from the curb at the 43 property located at 3249 Stinson Boulevard. 44 45 Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. 46 47 City Planner Erin Perdu reviewed the application for a conditional use permit to allow for a 48 dynamic display sign, the application has been reviewed and appears to meet the requirements. 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 2 Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow a dynamic 1 display sign on the property at 3249 Stinson Boulevard. The City Code requires signs to be 2 setback 15’ from the curb. The current legal non-conforming sign is located 12’6” from the curb. 3 The applicant’s request for a 2’6” variance from the setback is a reasonable request. Staff 4 recommends approval of the variance. 5 6 Ms. Perdu reviewed the background. Olson Truck Shop AKA Super America, located at 3249 7 Stinson Boulevard NE, wishes to construct a monument sign with a double-sided electronic 8 display on the corner of Stinson Blvd. and 33rd Avenue NE, where their current pylon sign is 9 located. This is the first application the city has received for a dynamic display sign for gasoline 10 prices since December 2014, when the City amended its sign code to allow for non-commercial 11 “dynamic display” signs in the C-Commercial district through the issuance of a conditional use 12 permit. 13 14 The design specifications, position and layout and additional sign requirements were reviewed. 15 Upon review of criteria for Conditional Use Permit all criterion were met. Ms. Perdu reviewed 16 the possible actions available for the Planning Commission as: 17 18 1. Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance and recommend 19 adoption of a resolution declaring terms of the same. 20 2. Motion to recommend denial of the conditional use permit and variance, based on the stated 21 findings and direct staff to develop a resolution denying the application. 22 3. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to 23 have provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation 24 to approve or deny the request. 25 26 Ms. Perdu provided the location map, application and supporting material and draft resolution of 27 approval for the Commission. 28 29 Chair Papatola stated in December of 2014 the Planning Commission and Council met to discuss 30 dynamic sign displays within the City. There was not a standing policy prior to that and this is a 31 good standard to judge these requests. 32 33 Ms. Amy Shanaa has owned the gas station for the last 15 years. She owns 3 stations and this is 34 the only one without a dynamic sign. She went through a similar request in Champlin and the 35 Council there requested the sign be turned off at 10:00 p.m. This could also happen in St. 36 Anthony if requested. 37 38 Chair Papatola asked Ms. Shanaa if this request was approved what would be the timeline for 39 installation. Ms. Shanaa stated they are ready to go as soon as approved. 40 41 Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. 42 43 Commissioner Socha stated she frequents this area and there are no homes really close by and 44 she does not see a need to have it turned off as long as it is not really bright. The vendor 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 3 unidentified in the audience noted the sign automatically dims in the evening in response to a 1 question from the audience. 2 3 Commissioner Neumann noted she did not receive any notification of the meeting for public 4 input. Ms. Perdu described how the notification process works. 5 6 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Kalar to recommend the City 7 Council approve the resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP to Allow for a Double-8 sided Dynamic Display Monument Sign and a 2’6” Variance from the required setback from the 9 curb on the premises located at 3249 Stinson Boulevard NE. 10 11 Motion carried 5-0. 12 13 B. Consider a request for re-zoning located at 3329 and 3331 Stinson Boulevard. The 14 specific request is to re-zone the property from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 15 Two-Family Residential. 16 17 Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. 18 19 Ms. Perdu reviewed staff recommendations to approve the re-zoning request, based on an 20 analysis of the existing and proposed land uses in the neighborhood. The Applicant/Owners are 21 Dan and Michelle Spriggs. The applicants have requested to re-zone the duplex they own located 22 at 3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard. The existing structure is a duplex, but they have been using 23 it as a single-family home for many years. They seek to now re-use it as a duplex and re-finance 24 under a two-unit structure. The property is currently zoned R-1 Single-Family, which does not 25 allow two-family structures. Since they have not been using it as a duplex, they are not eligible 26 for such a use either in the zoning code or under the legal, non-conforming use statute. This is 27 the only property that is out of sync as to the zoning and property use. Ms. Perdu described the 28 adjoining properties. 29 30 Ms. Perdu reviewed and Applicable Codes and Statutes along with the analysis of the request for 31 re-zoning. Ms. Perdu provided possible actions for the Commission: 32 33 1. Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the re-zoning of 3331 and 3329 Stinson 34 Boulevard from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential. 35 2. Motion to recommend that the City Council deny the re-zoning of 3331 and 3329 Stinson 36 Boulevard from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential. 37 3. Request Additional Information and Table the application. The applicant appears to not have 38 provided enough information for the City Council to approve or deny the request. 39 40 Ms. Perdu also provided a location map, application materials and a draft resolution. 41 42 Mr. Dan Spriggs, lived at residence since 1997 and with the refinancing the underwriters need 43 the zoning change. 44 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 4 Commissioner Neumann asked Mr. Spriggs asked if the second part of the house would be used 1 for a business and Mr. Spriggs stated no. He spoke with the neighbors and the neighbors had no 2 problem with the rezoning. 3 4 Commissioner Larson asked if the property was originally an R2 zoning duplex as it was built as 5 a duplex. Mr. Spriggs stated when he purchased the property it was a duplex and Section 8 6 housing. Ms. Perdu stated she does not know what the previous zoning was. Mr. Spriggs stated it 7 was built in 1968. This request is for permanent rezoning and it would stay that way. 8 9 Commissioner Socha stated there are two issues and she suggested a CUP could be done. Ms. 10 Perdu stated her understanding is a duplex is not allowed in R-1 so a Conditional Use Permit 11 could not be done. Commissioner Socha clarified the rezoning needs to be done for the 12 refinancing. 13 14 Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. 15 16 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Kalar to recommend the City 17 Council approve the resolution approving a Rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 18 Two-Family Residential at the Property located at 3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard. 19 20 Motion carried 5-0. 21 22 C. Consider an Administrative Appeal of Zoning Determination regarding decks from 23 Mary Friend 3331 Edward Street. 24 25 Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 26 27 Ms. Perdu reviewed the applicant Mary Friend, has requested to build a deck on the rear of their 28 property, but could not meet the setback. They sought a variance for the deck installation, and 29 the City Council denied the request. After several iterations of trying to come to a conclusion 30 that allowed them to build a larger deck and still meet the code, the Friends have submitted an 31 administrative appeal to the zoning determination that: 32 33 1. A deck is considered a primary structure if connected to the house, and such structure should 34 be subjected to the principal structure setback; and 35 2. That a deck is considered an accessory structure if at least 5 feet away from the home, and 36 therefore subject to accessory structure. 37 38 Ms. Perdu reviewed the applicable codes and statutes. She provided ordinance examples for St. 39 Paul, Burnsville, West St. Paul, North St. Paul and Mahtomedi. 40 41 If the Planning Commission is inclined to make an adjustment or change to the staff’s 42 interpretation related to decks (and NOT subject them to the typical principal structure/accessory 43 structure definitions and setbacks, the following options were offered: 44 45 1. Add a section of code relating to decks and evaluate appropriate setbacks for decks; 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 5 2. Interpret the zoning code to apply accessory structure setbacks to decks, regardless of the 1 proximity to the home (attached or detached). 2 3 Ms. Perdu reviewed the possible actions: 4 5 1. Motion to direct staff to bring back a draft ordinance that adds a section of code relating to 6 decks and evaluate appropriate setbacks for decks (recommended action); 7 2. Interpret the zoning code to apply necessary structure setbacks to decks, regardless of the 8 proximity to the home (attached or detached). 9 10 The Applicant’s letter of appeal was provided for Commission review. 11 12 Chair Papatola asked if the Ordinance is not explicit when it comes to decks. Ms. Perdu stated 13 staff recommends that a section of code be added related to decks and evaluate appropriate 14 setbacks for decks. The action this evening is on this appeal. 15 16 Commissioner Socha asked if the request could be tabled until a specific time period after the 17 code was written. Ms. Perdu stated some action would need to be done. The appeal is based on 18 the administration decision on the description of the deck. Commissioner Socha asked if the 19 Commission disagrees with Staff’s interpretation of the ordinance then an appeal would not be 20 necessary. Ms. Perdu stated if the Commission grants the appeal and the ordinance is interpreted 21 differently, then the applicant could apply for a building permit based on the Commission’s 22 interpretation of the ordinance. 23 24 Commissioner Larson stated this seems like more of an issue with setbacks rather than 25 determination of this is primary or accessory structure. 26 27 Chair Papatola stated he believes the original request was for a variance for the deck. 28 29 Ms. Mary Friend, 3113 Edward Street, stated her request last summer was for a variance. By the 30 interpretation of Ms. Rothstein, they would like to step onto a platform deck from the deck stairs. 31 32 Commissioner Kalar asked how far off the ground the platform deck would be. Ms. Friend stated 33 it would be as close to the ground as possible. She noted the address of the property is 3113 (not 34 3331). Ms. Friend stated they had decided to do a patio but they would exceed the impermeable 35 amount. 36 37 Commissioner Larson stated his memory was that the issue was whether it was attached or not 38 and if it wasn’t attached to the primary structure there was more flexibility. Ms. Friend stated 39 they built a large house on a smaller lot. Many contractors have been surprised on how the City 40 has interpreted the Ordinance. This platform deck would not be part of the principle structure. 41 Ms. Friend quoted Ms. Rothstein’s response. 42 43 Commissioner Socha asked when the platform deck would be constructed. Ms. Friend stated 44 they had hoped to get the deck done in time for her daughter’s graduation. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 6 Commissioner Neumann referred to the picture and Ms. Friend stated the picture is already what 1 is constructed on the house. Ms. Friend stated she wants the platform deck to be lower than the 2 existing deck. 3 4 Chair Papatola stated the Commission can act on the appeal but that wouldn’t get any closer to 5 clarity. He suggested this be sent back to staff to get some clarity on the Ordinance for this case 6 and any future case. He asked if staff’s recommendation is followed to bring back a draft 7 Ordinance, how quickly could that be done. Ms. Perdu stated in one or two months a draft could 8 be brought before the Commission. Staff recommends to deny the appeal. Ms. Friend asked the 9 Commission to consider her platform deck be 5 feet from the steps of her existing deck. 10 11 Commissioner Larson stated since a secondary structure cannot be within five feet of the primary 12 structure it seems that the existing deck which is part of the primary structure is interpreted in a 13 different way so that a secondary structure could come up to it. Ms. Perdu references eves. Ms. 14 Friend stated they would be more than five feet from the eves. He believes the existing deck is 15 the break from the primary structure. 16 17 Chair Papatola stated if the appeal is approved would that provide the property owner any 18 clarification or would she need to come back again to the Commission. He would rather create 19 something consistent. Ms. Perdu stated the appeal would need to be approved with wording on 20 the interpretation of the existing Code. This would give Ms. Friend the flexibility the build the 21 deck she wants. 22 23 Commissioner Socha asked Ms. Friend or she spoke with Ms. Rothstein about bring the variance 24 request back for review. Ms. Friend stated she was told an administrative appeal was the next 25 step. Ms. Friend stated she would visit a variance but she was in hopes that this would be 26 resolved differently. 27 28 Commissioner Neumann stated there is a variety of different types of lots within the City. There 29 are elders in the community that want to construct different type of structures. She commends 30 Ms. Friend for coming back with the appeal. She suggested the appeal be granted and then staff 31 be directed to draft the ordinance. Ms. Perdu stated there is a risk that during the time between 32 granting the appeal and the new ordinance being adopted, the interpretation would apply to all 33 properties within the City requesting decks. 34 35 Commissioner Kalar asked if another option is to grant the appeal and ask for the deck to fall 36 under the ordinance. Ms. Perdu stated the motion would need to include the interpretation that 37 would make Ms. Friend’s deck allowable under the current ordinance before the new ordinance 38 would be written. 39 40 Commissioner Socha stated her personal feeling is that Ms. Friend does have a bad situation and 41 it does not make sense to apply the current ordinance. She suggested the variance be reviewed 42 again. She suggested the appeal be denied and revive the request for variance. 43 44 Chair Papatola stated that would not be in order due to public notification. Ms. Friend stated she 45 believes there would be time but City Manager Casey stated there would not be time for 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 7 notification. This would need to go to Council and he is not comfortable creating an Ordinance 1 during a meeting. 2 3 Commissioner Larson asked if this could be tabled. 4 5 Commissioner Socha asked if Ms. Perdu were to submit another variance request would she be 6 asked to pay the fees again for that and Ms. Perdu stated she would assume she would. It is not 7 staff’s ability to waive fees. Commissioner Socha asked if that recommendation could be added 8 to the motion. Ms. Perdu stated a special meeting could also be set to allow for public 9 notification. Chair Papatola stated he does not believe that is possible. 10 11 Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. 12 13 Commissioner Kalar stated it makes sense to ask staff to bring back a draft ordinance so this 14 issue can be solved in a thoughtful way and get it done as soon as possible. 15 16 Commissioner Neumann stated she agrees with Commissioner Kalar and she does not see what 17 the fear is about granting the appeal. Chair Papatola stated it is not sufficient to just approve or 18 deny the appeal. Commissioner Neumann stated she does not understand how a precedence 19 would be set. Chair Papatola stated very specific direction would need to be given to staff. 20 21 Commissioner Larson stated the “or” would apply to every house in the City. The rules would be 22 interpreted differently. 23 24 Commissioner Socha introduced a preview of motions she would propose the Commission vote 25 on. 26 27 Commissioner Neumann does not understand why we can waive fees and not approve her 28 request. Commissioner Socha stated this would only apply to Ms. Friend’s request. 29 30 Commissioner Neumann stated she feels the Commission members are selected to give their 31 opinions. She does not understand the fear in approving the request. Life is full of unintended 32 consequences. The City has a history of being conservative. 33 34 Commissioner Larson stated the clarity is in the “or” is done the actual consequences is that the 35 zoning would be changed for decks throughout the City. 36 37 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Larson to direct Staff to bring back 38 a draft Ordinance that relates to the section of code relating to decks and to add appropriate 39 setback for decks in that draft Ordinance. 40 41 Motion carried 5-0. 42 43 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Kalar to deny the administrative 44 appeal. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 8 Motion carried 4-1 (Neumann). 1 2 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Neumann to recommend City Staff 3 direct City staff to waive any fees if the variance request is brought forward again by Ms. Friend 4 within a 12-month period of today’s hearing 5 6 Commissioner Kalar stated the Planning Commission does not have the power to waive any fees. 7 Commissioner Larson stated bringing back the variance may speed up the process. 8 9 Motion carried 4-1 (Kalar). 10 11 IV. STAFF REPORTS – NONE. 12 13 V. OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 14 15 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM. 16 17 Ms. Nancy Robinett, 3408 31st Avenue NE, referred to the lawsuit filed a week ago, stating the 18 lawsuit is unfortunate. She reminded the Planning Commission to include inclutionary zoning in 19 the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Some Planning Commission members were against this 20 being included. She would like inclusionary zoning to be discussed again and some research 21 done. She does not know if the City Council would approve it but this should not be forgotten 22 within the City. There is nothing about inclusionary zoning and affordable housing as a part of 23 zoning. She stated the City should care about it and if there was some inclusionary zoning 24 policies or Code in place, it may have changed the past 2½ years and Lowry Grove. 25 26 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENT. 27 28 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 29 30 Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to adjourn the meeting 31 at 8:35 p.m. 32 33 Motion carried 5-0. 34 35 36 Respectfully submitted, 37 Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 38   MEMORANDUM               To:      Planning Commissioners  From:      Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner      Date:      Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 2018      WSB Project No.  011104‐00  Request:  Public Hearing for variance to allow for the construction of a pool and  accessory structure at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace    RECOMMENDED ACTION  Staff recommends tabling this application, due to the need to amend the public hearing notice to  increase the variance request. The original notice went out to residents proposing a setback variance 9  feet less than needed. Tabling this request will allow staff to re‐notice the public hearing with accurate  setback requests. This item will then be considered at the November Planning Commission meeting.  THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK           NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING    Notice is hereby given that on October 22, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the  Saint Anthony Village City Council will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a variance  request for the property located at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace. The request is for a 30 foot variance to  allow for the construction of a pool up to 45 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and a 60 foot  variance to allow for the construction of an accessory structure 15 feet from the ordinary high water  mark.   Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be  accepted on the above subject at this meeting.  Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony  Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the  hearing.  Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763‐231‐4863.  The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available  prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com .  Breanne Rothstein, AICP  City Planner      MEMORANDUM               To:      Planning Commissioners  From:      Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner      Date:      Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 2018      WSB Project No.  011104‐00  Request:  Public Hearing to amend certain sections of city code related to decks    RECOMMENDATION  Recommend approval of the enclosed ordinance to make changes to the deck provision in the City Code.    CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE REQUEST    Based on an administrative appeal to staff’s interpretation of the regulations applicable to decks, the  Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance relating to and regulating the setbacks for  decks.    Currently the city code does not have any regulations relating to decks. Section 150.124 relates to the  definition of Accessory Structures. This section has been what staff has used to apply to decks, but is not  ideal in the applicability to decks.     Therefore, a suggested draft ordinance would establish the following provisions:    1) A definition of “deck”.     DECK - A platform attached to and projecting from the wall of a building or constructed on top of a building designed to be used by people as space which is part of the structure. For the purpose of this Zoning Ordinance a deck is considered “attached” if any part of it is within five (5) feet of an adjacent wall or building. An unattached deck, or a deck attached to an accessory building, shall be considered an accessory building.   2) Add language in “permitted encroachments” relating to decks.  3) Setbacks related to decks.   (G) Decks which are not higher than thirty (30) inches above grade at any given point along the grade are permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback by 10 feet and the side yard setback, as long as a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet is maintained. This encroachment does not apply in the R-1A Residential Lakeshore District or to decks higher than thirty (30) inches above grade at any given point along the grade. Such decks must comply with the setbacks for principal structures.     Page 2  RECOMMENDED ACTION  Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the enclosed ordinance which establishes provisions  for decks. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-01 SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 152.008 DEFINITIONS AND 152.177 PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS IN YARDS The City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village ordains as follows: Section One. Amendment to the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code to Amend Section §152.008 Definitions of the City Code of the City of Saint Anthony Village is hereby amended as follows. The deleted language is represented by strikethrough text. The additional language is represented by single underlined text. DECK. A platform attached to and projecting from the wall of a building or constructed on top of a building designed to be used by people as space which is part of the structure. For the purpose of this Zoning Ordinance a deck is considered “attached” if any part of it is within five (5) feet of an adjacent wall or building. An unattached deck, or a deck attached to an accessory building, shall be considered an accessory building. Section Two. Amendment to the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code to Amend Section §152.177 Encroachments in Yards of the City Code of the City of Saint Anthony Village is hereby amended as follows. The deleted language is represented by strikethrough text. The additional language is represented by single underlined text. (G) Decks which are not higher than thirty (30) inches above grade at any given point along the grade are permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback by 10 feet and the side yard setback, as long as a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet is maintained. This encroachment does not apply in the R-1A Residential Lakeshore District or to decks higher than thirty (30) inches above grade at any given point along the grade. Such decks must comply with the setbacks for principal structures. Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance amendment shall be in full force and effect upon its publication as provided by law. Passed in regular session of the City Council on ________________________, 2018. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE By:_________________________________ Jerome O. Faust, Mayor ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk   MEMORANDUM               To:      Planning Commissioners  From:      Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner      Date:      Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 2018      WSB Project No.  011104‐00  Request:  Review Solsmart Recommendations regarding the City’s solar ordinance    RECOMMENDATION  Review and accept the report by SolSmart related to the city’s solar ordinance.    BACKGROUND  The city of St. Anthony seeks to get certified as a “SolSmart Community”. This is an initiative to advance  the  city’s  sustainability  work  and  to  implement  certain  provisions of the comprehensive plan. This  designation sets the city apart as one of the leaders in implementing solar friendly and sustainable  principles.  One of the requirements of the designation is that solar industry review and comment on the city’s  ordinance. No action is required of the city except to review and accept the report by SolSmart. It is not  recommended by staff that any changes are made to the city’s ordinance at this time. The city spent a lot  of effort discussing the solar ordinance and staff believes it serves the city well at this time.    RECOMMENDED ACTION  Motion to accept the report by SolSmart related to the city’s solar ordinance. THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ZONING REVIEW – St. Anthony Village Potential barriers in current code language Section(s) Element Reviewer Comments Example(s) from other codes Priority level § 152.122 – C General Commercial District Condition al use The zoning ordinance stipulates that solar energy systems are permitted by conditional use permit only. It is a best practice to permit solar energy systems as a by-right accessory use in all zoning districts. More permissive: “Solar Energy Systems as described in this Article are permitted in all zoning districts as an accessory use to a permitted principal use subject to the standards for accessory uses in the applicable zoning district and the specific criteria set forth in this article.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) Less permissive: “Solar Energy Systems shall be considered an accessory use and permitted by right if mounted to an existing structure and if any percentage of the energy is used for one or more of the principal uses on the same lot.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) High (Allowing solar as by-right accessory use will significantly reduce installation times and costs, which should encourage further development of solar energy.) § 152.187(B)( 2)(a) Visibility The zoning ordinance limits visibility of solar energy systems from the nearest street frontage. It is not a best practice to screen solar energy systems or limit their visibility from public rights-of- way. More permissive option: Screening of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment: All exterior mechanical and electrical equipment shall be screened on all vertical sides at least to the height of the equipment it is screening and incorporated into the design of buildings to the maximum extent feasible. Equipment to Medium (Screening requirements may increase the cost of installation and could also decrease the efficiency of a solar energy system by PZD-1a: Review zoning requirements and identify restrictions that intentionally or unintentionally prohibit solar PV development. Compile findings in a memo. (Required) To assist your community, the national solar experts at SolSmart have conducted a review of your community’s zoning code to assess possible barriers (i.e. height restrictions, set-back requirements, etc.) and gaps related to solar PV development. Below, please find the outcome of their review. By reading the narrative, reviewing the example code language provided, and signing the statement at the bottom of the page, your community will satisfy PZD-1a and be one step closer to achieving SolSmart designation. be screened includes, but is not limited to, all roof- mounted equipment, air conditioners, heaters, utility meters, cable equipment, telephone entry boxes, backflow preventions, irrigation control valves, electrical transformers, pull boxes, and all ducting for air conditioning, heating, and blower systems. Screening materials may include landscaping or other materials that shall be consistent with the exterior colors and materials of the building. Solar energy systems are exempt from this screening requirement. (emphasis added) The Architectural Review Board or Landmarks Commission may reduce the height of the required screening based on the placement of the equipment on the roof, the existing height of the subject building and surrounding buildings, and the overall visibility of the equipment. (Santa Monica Zoning Code) Less permissive option: Current language in § 152.187(B)(2)(a) increase shading of solar modules.) § 152.187(B)( 3)(a) Setbacks The zoning ordinance requires double the minimum setback for freestanding solar energy systems. More permissive option: (1) Small- and medium-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems accessory to principal use may be located no closer than [1/2 of the setback that would otherwise apply] from the front, side or rear lot line. All ground- mounted solar energy systems in residential districts shall be installed either in the side yard or rear yard to the extent practicable (Massachusetts Dept. of Energy Resources, Model Zoning for the Regulation of Solar Energy Systems) Low (The City may want to consider reducing the setback requirements for solar energy systems and/or allow them to encroach reasonably into the setback so that they can receive adequate sunlight to make them efficient.) Less permissive option: (2) Small- and medium-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems accessory to a principal use may be located no closer than [twenty (20) feet] from the front, side or rear lot line. All ground- mounted solar energy systems in residential districts shall be installed either in the side yard or rear yard to the extent practicable. (Massachusetts Dept. of Energy Resources, Model Zoning for the Regulation of Solar Energy Systems) § 152.187(B)( 3)(a) Placement of free- standing systems The zoning ordinance limits the installation of free-standing solar energy systems to the rear yard. While this is understandable from an aesthetic perspective, it could limit the number of viable sites for installing solar energy systems. More permissive option: Ground-Mounted Systems shall not be permitted in a front yard unless the applicant demonstrates that the rear yard locations will not result in acceptable solar access. (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) Less permissive option: Current language in § 152.187(B)(3)(a) Low (Allowing solar energy to be installed in the side, front, or rear yard would increase the viable sites for solar systems, especially if a rear yard and/or roof is shaded.) § 152.187(B)( 3)(b) Freestandi ng solar energy systems The zoning ordinance limits freestanding solar systems to 3% of the lot area. In R-1, R- 1A, that would limit freestanding systems to about 5.3 kW in size. Most permissive option: “For purposes of determining compliance with building coverage standards of the applicable zoning district, the total horizontal projection area of all ground-mounted and free-standing solar collectors, including solar photovoltaic cells, panels, arrays, inverters, shall be considered pervious coverage so long as pervious conditions are maintained underneath the solar photovoltaic cells, panels, and arrays.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) Less permissive option: “For purposes of determining compliance with building coverage standards of the Low (The existing zoning would limit the size of ground- mounted solar energy systems in the R-1 and R- 1A districts to roughly 5 kW. Systems of this size would produce enough energy to cover about half of an average household’s load. Therefore, the existing ordinance language would prohibit larger systems that could offset more of the energy applicable zoning district, the total horizontal projection area of all ground-mounted and free-standing solar collectors, including solar photovoltaic cells, panels, arrays, inverters and solar hot air or water collector devices, shall be considered ___% impervious coverage. For example, if the total horizontal projection of a solar energy system is 100 square feet, XX square feet shall count towards the impervious coverage standard. For a tracking array or other moveable system, the horizontal projection area shall be calculated at a 33- degree tilt angle.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) load on site, or which could be sent back to the grid.) Potential gaps in current code language Element Reviewer Comments Example(s) from other codes Priority level Ex. Setbacks, Height Restrictions, Definition, etc. Additional notes I, have received the zoning review and read its findings. [Name] [Title] [State] , as of [Community] , Signature ____________________________________________ Date _________________________ ,