HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/2016 Workshopr1mmo .
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop
Meeting Agenda
March 8, 2016
Andover City Hall
Conference Rooms A & B
6.00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Oath of Office - Commissioners Scott Hudson and Bert Koehler N
3. Discuss Subordinate Classroom Structures
4. Discuss Accessory Dwelling Units
5. Discuss Solar Energy System Regulations
6. Discuss Animal Regulations
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
NDOVTE *
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss Subordinate Classroom Structures
DATE: March 8, 2016
REQUEST
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to continue discussions on
subordinate classroom structures.
The City Council met on February 23, 2016 in a workshop setting and discussed
subordinate classroom structures (draft minutes attached). Council reviewed the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to take a stronger position on
these structures by allowing an additional five year extension with possibly an additional
two year extension if the property owner had plans in place to remove the structure or
create a permanent structure. The City Council was split (4 members in attendance) on
being more aggressive in working towards their removal versus allowing them to remain
provided they are safe and code compliant. City Council did direct the Building Official
to accompany the Fire Marshall in the two year inspection process and report back to the
City Council on his findings regarding the structural integrity of the units and compliance
with building codes.
Attached please find historical documentation in the form of staff reports and minutes
from meetings on discussions had to date on this topic.
Attachments
Draft February 23, 2016 City Council Workshop Minutes
February 23rd City Council Staff Report with attachments
Respectfully Submitted,
L
David L. Carlberg
2
3�
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3 gZ
41 P
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — February 23, 2016
Page 4
Councilmember Goodrich asked if the City helps with oak wilt. Mr. Kytonen r ponded it
currently does not, but the City has in the past.
Mayor Trude said she would be in favor of giving an initial incentive fo e injections. People
might take the incentive and decide if they would like to go further, a suggested starting out
with a small budget, and when the money is gone, it is gone.
Mr. Kytonen noted the policy states $5,000 per year will be riated for this purpose. Grants
can be sought after as well.
Councilmember Knight asked whether oak wilt travels Vster than ash borer. Mr. Kytonen
replied not necessarily. The beetle can fly about a haVmile.
Mr. Dickinson stated the assistance would be first/come. first served.
Consensus was reached to s/suggested et offer financial assistance within budgetary
constraints.
Mr. Dickinson asked whethhould chemically treat selected ash trees
on public property. He suged planting in high profile areas where the ash trees may
provide shade. To plan for o die, new trees should be planted in those high profile
areas. Councilmember Holted speaking with Park and Recreation Commission to see
if there are preferred parks t .
DISCUSS
TREE POLICY
Mr. Kytonen expl ' ed the City has a Diseased Tree Ordinance and a Diseased Tree
Removal/Sanitat' n Enforcement Policy that outlines the process to inspect, diagnose, mark
trees, notify pr erty owners, issue deadlines, and document trees. Currently, staff only
considers tre that have the potential to spread insect and diseases as public nuisances. Mr.
Kytonen a ed the City Council to provide direction on whether or not the Diseased Tree
Ordinan and Diseased Tree Removal /Sanitation Enforcement Policy should be revised to
includ azardous trees.
! Kytonen advised there may be trees with no disease, but for example could have a crack in
These would need to be removed.
DISCUSS SUBORDINATE CLASSROOM STR UCTURES
policy.
42 Mr. Carlberg reviewed the City Council's past discussion of subordinate classroom structures
43 and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the City take a stronger
44 position on these structures by only allowing an additional five -year extension with possibility of
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — February 23, 2016
Page 5
1 an additional two -year extension if the property owner has plans in place to remove the structure
2 or create a permanent structure. Mr. Carlberg discussed the churches in the city that now have
3 subordinate classrooms. Grace Lutheran Church on Bunker Lake Boulevard and Round Lake
4 Boulevard has an expiration date of December 31, 2019 for their subordinate classrooms.
5 Meadow Creek Church asked for a two -year extension, which now expires December 31, 2019.
6 The staff at Meadow Creek Church wants to upgrade the building and create better space. They
7 hope to have the temporary classrooms gone within two years. As long as they are showing
8 progress with building, they could come back to Council and request another 2 years. Mr.
9 Dickinson pointed out part of the current Meadow Creek Church project removing subordinate
10 structures was also to create a new soccer field.
11
12 Mr. Carlberg said questions of inspections have come up and the City did inspect in 2014 and
13 will again in 2016. The inspections will be looking more at life safety issues. Both the Fire
14 Department and the Building Department will be involved in inspections.
15
16 Mr. Carlberg asked the City Council to provide direction on whether or not the City should
17 regulate these structures.
18
19 Mayor Trude said she has been in the subordinate classrooms and they are usually not warm, the
20 windows can be leaky, and the heat is an issue in some of them. She pointed out the floors can
21 be unsafe.
22
23 Mr. Carlberg stated Andover High School is the only school in the city that has subordinate
24 classroom structures. They were added in 2004. At the time, it was permitted to have classroom
25 structures. They are existing structures so they are grandfathered into the current rule to have an
26 Interim Use Permit (IUP). Restrictions are strong for schools. Generally the Building
27 Department has been hands -off with schools but the Fire Marshall inspects annually. Schools
28 also have their own inspections through their Facility Management Department.
29
30 Mr. Fred Patch, Chief Building Official commented the students have to go outside, unprotected,
31 to the subordinate classroom structure. The structures are ADA accessible and they do have
32 restrooms. The ramp can be slick in the rain or snow. Councilmember Holthus commented
33 there are portable classrooms at Sand Creek Elementary in Coon Rapids and there is a split in
34 them. The snow sometimes comes through.
35
36 Mr. Carlberg advised any new portable classrooms must have an Interim Use Permit. He noted
37 the last extension grant for a portable classroom was given in 2013 to Andover Christian Church.
38 Their permit expires August 21, 2018. There are two classrooms connected at that church.
39
40 Mr. Patch noted there are electrical hazards, broken outlets, and rats nesting underneath these
41 structures. He said the Fire Department primarily inspects for fire safety. His department will
42 inspect for most everything. Both departments should conduct inspections.
43
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting D®
Minutes —February 23, 2016 /f ja��
Page 6 7
1 Mayor Trude asked what the portable classrooms are on for a foundation. Mr. Patch replied they
2 are usually on concrete blocks. If rodents get in, they can tear up the under flooring. If they are
3 well maintained, and cared for, these buildings could last indefinitely.
4
5 Councilmember Holthus asked at what point are these structures deemed uninhabitable. Mr.
6 Patch responded the structural integrity would have to be severely compromised.
7
8 Councilmember Goodrich stated he does not want the government telling them what to do, if it is
9 not needed. If the classrooms are not an eyesore, they are safe, and they are taken care of, he
10 doesn't think the City should get involved.
11
12 Mr. Patch suggested the Building and Fire Departments look further into whether the classrooms
13 are property anchored. If they are not, they may not be able to withstand high wind speeds. Mr.
14 Patch stated they do need to be inspected thoroughly.
15
16 Mayor Trude stated these types of structures are typically built with low quality materials. They
17 are not allowed to be constructed to be used as garages, but they are allowed to put people in.
18 She raised the issue that it costs money to have staff perform inspections. However, if they are
19 brought up to code, that would be more acceptable.
20
21 Councilmember Holthus agreed she is concerned about the general condition of the units.
22
23 Mr. Carlberg noted any unsafe situations need to be a violation of City Code to be considered
24 whether it is hazardous under State Code. If the carpet is worn out, that is just appearance,
25 which is not covered under Code.
26
27 Mayor Trude pointed out staff does not usually visit these properties, so this is a fine line.
28
29 Mr. Carlberg said with an NP, it allows a chance to get in and inspect if that is a condition for
30 approval. The City has control with an IUP.
31
32 Mr. Patch commented visits are generally allowed because they are temporary structures.
33
34 Mr. Dickinson noted Anoka Hennepin School District has indicated they would like to phase out
35 subordinate classrooms in all locations and will likely be asking for capital funds in a future bond
36 referendum.
37
38 Councilmember Holthus stated she understands they are a necessary evil. The space is needed.
39
40 Councilmember Knight and Mayor Trude voiced their opinion that they would like the portable
41 classrooms phased out.
42
43 Mr. Patch suggested the portable units be evaluated over the course of a couple years. The cost
44 to maintain the structures could outweigh the cost of replacing the structure.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — February 23, 2016
Page 7
0Rq*4tr
1 Mayor Trude pointed out the Code states the property owner must have an alternate plan in case
2 the license is not renewed. This message needs to be given to the property owners in time for
3 them to create an alternate plan.
4
5 Councilmember Knight suggested the property owners be informed of what to expect when staff
6 arrives for inspections. He said student health should be emphasized.
7
8 It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to conduct both Building and Fire inspections.
9 Safety criteria will be drawn up in regard to rodents, mold and health.
10
13 . Carlberg explained the City Council's past discussion relating to Accessory Dwelling Units
14 ( U) and recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission to allow ADUs in the R -1,
15 Sing - Family Rural Zoning District as a detached accessory structure by the granting of a
16 Conditi al Use Permit (CUP). He stated the property must be 2.5 acres, and the property owner
17 must resi there. Two off -street parking spaces would be required. There would be no
18 common entr ce into both homes. An ADU shall have a permanent foundation, which means
19 no tiny homes ar lowed.
20
21 Mr. Carlberg asked th City Council to provide direction on whether or not the City should
22 amend the City Code to al ADUs as recommended.
23
24 Discussion took place on Num 11 in the draft ordinance amendment on whether the ADU
25 could be licensed for rental. The e allows for rental of the primary unit, or the ADU, as long
26 as the property owner lives in one, an btains a rental license.
27
28 Councilmember Knight asked if someone 'ved in an ADU, could they also have a home
29 occupation there.
30
31 Mr. Carlberg said there are provisions for home occu tions. However, they would need to be in
32 the principal structure. Home businesses should not be ' e accessory structure.
33
34 Mayor Trude advised it should be made clear that an ADU c of be converted to commercial
35 use. In a principal structure, 20% of it can be dedicated to a home usiness.
36
37 The Council reached consensus to leave Number 11 as written.
38
39 Councilmember Goodrich commented the fact of renting these at all is uniqu He asked if it is
40 common to rent second buildings. Mr. Patch answered any portion of a princi home can be
41 rented. In addition, there can be up to five unrelated people living in a home.
42
43 Mr. Carlberg stated a Conditional Use Permit goes with the land.
44
AN66
BE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss Subordinate Classroom Structures
DATE: February 23, 2016
REQUEST
The City Council is requested to continue discussions on subordinate classroom
structures and provide direction to staff on the City Council's desire to regulate
these structures.
BACKGROUND
The City Council discussed subordinate classroom structures at the October 20,
2015 workshop (minutes attached). The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the City take a stronger position on these
structures by allowing an additional five year extension with possibly an additional
two year extension if the property owner had plans in place to remove the structure
or create a permanent structure.
During City Council discussions at the October 20th workshop, the question was
raised on how churches were treated versus public schools. Prior to a 2014 code
amendment, subordinate classroom structures were allowed by Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) where there is a church as the principal use and as a permitted use
when located on a licensed primary and/or secondary school property. The code
amendment, adopted in 2014, made subordinate classroom structures for both
churches and schools allowed by the granting of an Interim Use Permit (IUP).
Attached please find historical documentation in the form of staff reports and
minutes from meetings on discussions had to date on this topic.
ACTION
Provide direction to staff on how Council would like to proceed.
Attachments
October 20, 2015 City Council Staff Report with attachments
October 20, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
/ /i
David L. Carlberg
C 1 T §`
UV
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304'• (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Dave Carlberg, Community Dev opm t Director
SUBJECT: Subordinate Classroom Structures - Panning
DATE: October 20, 2015
INTRODUCTION
At the September 8, 2015 workshop, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) discussed
subordinate classroom structures in regards to other cities requirements, life span of the
structures, and quality of the structures. Staff researched codes and spoke with staff from 10
metro cities. The research information and P & Z workshop meeting minutes are attached for
your review.
DISCUSSION
City Requirements
Through researching the 10 communities, staff determined it is more common to require either
an Interim Use Permit (IUP) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with an expiration date. If an
extension is requested, it is typical for the city to work with the applicant by extending the
permit. 6 of the cities (Andover, Anoka, Blaine, Elk River, Plymouth, Ramsey) have
similar /same code requirements.
3 cities (Coon Rapids, Rogers, Wayzata) do not address temporary structures within the city
code.
Coon Rapids updated the City Code 2 years ago and the portion referring to temporary
classrooms was removed from the code.
Rogers does not address them; however, it would need to be approved through the site plan
review process.
Wayzata does not address them and the city does not have these types of structures.
2 cities (Rogers, Shoreview) require the structures to be approved as part of a site plan review
process; however neither of the cities have these type of structures.
Life Span of Structure
No cities' address the life span of the structures. According to Andover Fire and Building staff,
the structure itself should last indefinitely as long as it is kept up and continuously updated to
address life safety issues. Fire codes don't change very often. There are provisions for existing
building that may not require the building to meet the new code but must meet the code that was
in effect at the time it was constructed.
Currently, the State Fire Marshal's Office is required to inspect all public schools and their
"relocatable classrooms" every 3 years. Andover Fire Staff makes an effort to inspect the schools
and churches every 2 years.
Quality of Structure
No cities' address the quality of the structures. These types of structures are constructed
according to Building and Fire Codes. Again, according to Andover Fire and Building staff, the
structure itself should last indefinitely as long as it is kept up and continuously updated to
address life safety issues.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
At the September 8, 2015 workshop, P & Z stated concerns with the length of time these
structures remain on site and the continuous extension approvals. P & Z recommended allowing
subordinate classroom structures for a time period of five (5) years with the possibility of a two
(2) year extension with a plan from the property owner to either remove the structure(s) or the
conversion to a permanent structure(s).
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council is requested to discuss the timeframe allowed for existing and future subordinate
classrooms and provide P & Z and staff with direction regarding the possibility of a time limit.
Attachments
Research of City Codes
September 8, 2015 P & Z Workshop Meeting Minutes
Respectfully ubmi ed,
Stephanie L. Hanson
Subordinate/Temporary Structures
Andover
Requires an IUP
5 year permit. Staff is not aware of any instances in which an existing permit was not extended if
the request has been made.
Public schools are a permitted use in residential. districts; there are no restrictions on expansion
by construction of temporary classrooms.
Places of Worship are a conditional use therefore any expansion of their facilities would require
the issuance of an IUP.
Anoka
Requires an IUP
In 2010 the CC approved an IUP for temporary classrooms for the Anoka High School, set to
expire on 7/1/2020. Part of the conditions does not allow additional classrooms: If an addition
to the high school is not completed by 2020, the IUP will be.extended.
Blaine
Requires a CUP
The City will work with the applicant to determine a.timeframe needed fbr the CUP. The
existing CUP structures at the schools and churches have been amended when the request has
been made.
Coon Rapids
Code does not address temporary classrooms
Staff is not aware of any of these structures within the City of Coon Rapids
A couple years ago the Coon Rapids code was updated — the portion referring to temporary
classrooms was removed from the code.
Elk River
Requires an IUP
I
IUP's have an expiration date of typically 2- 3 years with a condition that the IUP will not be
extended.
Currently, there is one (1) place of worship with an NP for 3 (three) temporary structures. The
structure being used as an office will not be granted an IUP extension; the 2 (two) structures used
for classrooms may apply for an RM extension.
Plymouth
Requires an NP
Are allowed for public or private schools
The City will work with the applicant to determine a timeframe needed for the IUP. Extensions
for the existing permit would be extended if the request has been made.
Ramsey
Requires an IUP
5 year permit. Staff is not aware of any instances in which an existing permit was not extended if
the request has been made. Ramsey Public Works Department has an IUP for use of a modular
office.
Rogers
Code does not specifically address temporary classrooms. Existing "temporary classrooms" have
been approved through the site plan review process.
Shoreview
These types of structures are considered permanent. An applicant would need to go through the
formal site plan review process. The structures would need to meet building requirements set
forth in the Shoreview code. The City does not have any of these types of structures within the
city.
Wayzata
Code does not address temporary classrooms. Staff is not aware of any of these structures within
the City of Wayzata.
PLANNING AND ZOMNG C016IlYHSSION WORKS'HOPMEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Daninger on September 8, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Cleven, Bert
Koehler, Kyle Nemeth, and Jeff Sims.
Commissioners absent: Lynae GudmundsoA Steve Peterson
Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
City Planner Stephanie Hanson
Others
DISCUSS SUBORDINATE CLASSROOMSTRUCTURES
a: Other Cities Requirements .
6. Life Span of the Structure
c. Quality of Structures
City Planner Hanson stated she looked at ten different metro cities and Andover's code is
very similar to them She stated some cities do not even address subordinate classroom
structures. Coon Rapids used to have them in their code and removed them so they are
not allowed at all.
Chairperson Daninger indicated he did not remember if this item was the Commission's
idea td take a look at or was it directed by the City Council. Commissioner Cleven stated
the Commission wanted to look at this because the subordinate classroom extensions are
never ending. Commissioner Nemeth stated if the structures are temporary, then why are
they always getting approved with sidewalks and landscaping. Commissioner Cleven
stated even in the report the Fire Department goes in and inspects them and approves
them as long as they meet the current safety codes.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Mort shop Meeting
Minutes — September 8, 2015
Page 2
Chairperson Daninger asked what if they changed the wording to portable classrooms.
Commissioner Cleven stated they could not call them that because then they would need
to be readily moveable which they are not. Chairperson Daninger asked if they should
then be called classrooms..
City Planner Hanson stated some of the other cities definition states the structures need to
be used only for classrooms, not offices or storage.
Commissioner Nemeth stated it seems like the applicants need to be given a timeframe or
a sunset clause which will make them do something within the specified period of time or
they would need to remove the structure.
Commissioner Koehler asked if the City is going to keep renewing the structures and the
Building Department and Fire Department say they are safe, why do we care. He asked if
there is some mechanism they could put in place to make these permanent rather than
renewing.them year after year.
Commissioner Cleven stated in order for a piece of property, temporary of any type, for it
to be permanent, it has to be set on a foundation with permanent water, sewer and power
connected to it. Commissioner Koehler stated when he says'permanent he means the
City's idea of permanent like a PUD on the property. It could be a lasting permit as long
as the Building Department and Fire Department say it is safe.
Commissioner Nemeth stated the retoricalness of it-is the applicants have been given the
opportunity to build but the City keeps approving the subordinate building so there is no
real incentive to build within the specified timeframe. He agreed after a set amount of
time it needs to have a sunset clause. After a set amount of time then the City needs to
tell the owner they need to bring something through as a site plan or something like that
and get something done rather than continuing to approve the structure.
Chairperson Daninger stated something that bothers him is the never ending extension
approvals. Commissioner Koehler stated that is why he is suggesting converting it to
permanent at some point. He stated he did not think these structures are safe and he
would feel really bad if someone got hurt.
Commissioner Cleven indicated he did not think these are safe structures. Commissioner
Nemeth thought they were setting a precedent by approving these without setting a sunset
clause on them. He thought they needed to start enforcing the time frame of the approval.
City Planner Hanson thought Public Schools did not need permitting for the structures.
Community Development Director Carlberg stated the old structures did not need
permitting but the new ones would need permitting because they will fall under the new
ruP rules.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
[Minutes —September 8, 2015
Page 3
Chairperson Daninger stated he was ok with approving the structure but only allowing a
certain amount of time such as seven years and no longer. Commissioner Nemeth stated
they could go with a five year permit with a possible two year extension but no longer.
Commissioner Sims thought they would need a reason why not to continue to approve the
permit. Commissioner Cleven stated in his mind these structures are not temporary
because a temporary structure gets removed after the set number of time that it was
approved for. He stated a temporary structure can become permanent if anchored to a
concrete slab and can be connected to water, sewer and electricity.
Commissioner Koehler stated he liked the idea of approving a permit of five years with a
two year extension but he thought it should be longer like another five years because of
economic downturns and he thought ten years would be enough -for a turn around.
City Planner Hanson stated the Fire Chief stated the Fire Department treats these as
permanent structures in the City. She indicated she will get a more definitive answer to
this.
Commissioner Cleven stated Andover does not allow mobile homes in the City and that
is what these are. Commissioner Nemeth stated he understood where Councilmember
Knight'was coming from with schools because of the up and down cycles of the
populations.
Commissioner Cleven stated if we do not allow mobile homes in the City, why are we
allowing kids to spend time in one at school. Community Development Director
Carlberg stated the City does not allow mobile homes but they do allow manufactured
homes provided they are located in a manufactured home park.
Chairperson Daninger asked if this can go before the City Council indicating the
Planning Commission would like to change this to a five year permit with a possible
extension for two years and then be done. Community Developmen vector ar rg
asked if this would be new or existing or both. Chairperson Daninger thought this should
include new and existing allowing the extension only once it comes up for renewal.
Commissioner Koehler thought they should not require someone to remove the building
but have the possibility of converting it to a permanent structure.
Community Development Director Carlbeig stated he would bring this item forward to
the City Council for further direction and come back to the Planning Commission with
more direction.
ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING — OCTOBER 20, 2015
MINUTES
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trude,
October 20, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW,
Andover, Minnesota.
Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila, Valerie Holthus and James Goodrich
Councilmember absent: None
Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson
Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg
Public Works Director /City Engineer, David Berkowitz
Others
SUBORDINATE CLASSROOMSTRUCTURES
Mr. Carlberg explained the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed subordinate classroom
structures in regard to other cities requirements, life span of the structures, and quality of the
structures. Staff researched codes and spoke with staff from 10 other metro cities.
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the information with the Council.
Mayor Trade stated she did not think any of the churches planned for the structures to be there as
long as they have been.
Councilmember Bukkila asked what kind of expense is put into the subordinate classrooms in
terms of buying, outfitting, utilities and everything else. Mr. Carlberg stated he is not sure.
Mayor Trade stated it depended on the user because Grace Lutheran Church actually poured
footings for their structure. Mr. Carlberg stated they.have permanent anchoring or foundations
and that is the reason why the City changed the name from Temporary to Subordinate
Classrooms because they are starting to be more than temporary buildings.
Councilmember Bukkila asked when these structures first came into the City were they supposed
to be temporary. Mr. Carlberg indicated that was correct. Councilmember Bukkila stated she
was at the point where she thought they should sunset all of the subordinate structures and get rid
of them and not allow any new ones.
Councilmember Holthus thought they should have a moratorium on any new subordinate
classroom strictures in the City and grandfather in the ones currently in the City, because they
basically can last forever. Mayor Trade thought that was an overstatement because the floors do
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 20, 2015
Page 2 —
fail along with the surrounding structures.
Councilmember Bukkila thought these structures have gone to a permanent structure because
they are putting significant money into them, they are building these *out to last, and she did not
think that was the City's original intent.
Councilmember Holthus thought some of the subordinate structures are well maintained and she
is not sure if she wanted to phase those out because they are needed, the structures do not look
bad, and according to the Fire Marshall they can stay viable as long as they are maintained.
Councilmember Goodrich stated he is not against rubber stamping them. He stated if the
structures are maintained and inspected he is all for letting them do what they want to do with the
structures as long as they follow the conditions the City puts on them. He stated he would like to
allow them to stay if there is no real downside to it
Mayor Trade stated. as she drives around the City she wonders about the outward appearance,
they do have building codes and they allowed this, she sees these structures as detractors to the
community.
Councilmember Holthus asked what the City stance is on mobile homes in the City. Mr.
Carlberg stated the City does not allow mobile homes in the City unless in a mobile park, which
is an R -5 District and the few that are in the City have been grandfathered in and when they are
gone they cannot bring in new. Councilmember Holthus thought they could go by those same
criteria for these structures.
Councilmember Knight thought they could also go to a deadline program where after five years
they need to show they are moving to a permanent structure. Mayor Trade thought that was
what the Planning and Zoning Commission was moving towards. Councilmember Bukkila
stated she would like to see progress towards building a permanent structure. Councilmember
Holthus stated she would like the ones currently in the City to be grandfathered in.
Councilmember Bukkila asked if this was unique to the churches or would this include the
schools also. Mr. CarIberg stated this would apply to churches only because public schools are
permitted in residential districts, the ones put in at Andover High School are permitted.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would have a problem with this because she wanted
everything to be equal, if they do not permit them in private then they should not be permitted in
public. Mr. Carlberg stated in 2013 they did a complete rewrite of the Use Code, Chapter 12,
and they separated them out at that point and indicated schools would be permitted.
Mayor Trade thought the schools were another issue that needed to be reviewed for safety
reasons.
Mayor Trade thought they should go with the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation because the majority of the Council is for this. She also thought they should
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 20, 2015
Page 3
talk with the churches regarding their plans with the structures.
Mr. Carlberg explained at the September 15, 2015 City Council work session, Council discussed
an arhele in the Star Tribune "Granny flats" may find a home in Inver Grove Heights and gave
the Pl g and Zoning Commission direction to discuss the possibility of allowing ADU's
within theNCitv of Andover.
Mr. Carlberg rNyiewed the staff report with the Council.
Mayor Trade tho t they would want to get some public input regarding this item. She stated
no one else is doing a onditional Use Permit (CUP) for these and she thought they would want
some neighborhood inp to these.
Councilmember Holthus wo ered if the structures would be like mobile homes. Mr. Carlberg
stated the building code has a 1 of requirements that would be used for these types of structures.
He stated they would want to ma sure it is more of a permanent structure rather than a portable
type of home.
The Council would like the Planning
ordinance.
SEPTEMBER 2015 GENERAL FUND BUD
Commission to continue to work on a possible
PROGRESS REPORTS
Mr. Dickinson stated the City of Andover 2015 Ge ral Fund Budget contains total revenues of
$9,876,575 and total expenditures of $10,364,730 'dudes $26,000 of 2014 budget carry
forward); a decrease in fund balance is planned.
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the information with the Council.
SEPTEMBER 2015 CITYEVVESTWIVTSREVIEW
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the City investments with the Council.
Mayor Trade asked how the cash carry forward (Fund Balance) is looking. Mr. Dickinson stated
it is looking good.
2016BVDGET & 2 016-2 02 0 CM DEVELOPMENT UPDATES
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the 2016 budget and CIP development with the Council, in particular
available General Fund Balance.
AN66
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
FROM:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
David L. Carlberg, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss Accessory Dwelling Units
DATE:
REQUEST
March 8, 2016
The Planning and Zoning Commission
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
BACKGROUND
is requested to continue discussions on
The City Council discussed ADUs at their September 151` and October 20th
workshop meetings (minutes attached). Council directed the Planning and Zoning
Commission to work on a possible ordinance amendment to allow ADUs.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held three work sessions on November 10,
2015, December 8, 2015 and January 13, 2016 (minutes attached). The
Commission reviewed other city regulations on ADUs and drafted the attached
ordinance amendment for Council consideration. The Commission's
recommendation to the City Council is to allow ADUs in the R -1, Single Family
Rural Zoning District as a detached accessory structure by the granting of a
Conditional Use Permit.
The City Council at their February 23, 2016 Workshop reviewed the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Council did agree
with the Commission's recommendation with a few minor changes. Attached are
the draft minutes from the meeting.
Attachments
Draft Ordinance Amendment
February 23, 2016 Draft City Council Workshop Minutes
September 15, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes
October 20, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes
November 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
December 8, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Other City's ADU Regulations Summary
Respectfully Submitted,
a�a el LI?4
David L. Carlberg
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
A. Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to permit and regulate an
accessory dwelling unit (ADM. An ADU may be located accessory to a
single - family dwelling in the R -1, Single Family Rural zoning district
only as a conditional use subject to the regulations set forth herein. The
minimum lot size in the R -1 zoning district ensures that additional
housing will have less impact on neighboring properties. Because this use
will be located in established one - family residential districts (single
family home neighborhoods), the installation and use of an accessory
dwelling unit must be strictly controlled to avoid adverse physical, social,
economic, environmental and aesthetic impacts. By allowing only those
accessory dwelling units that are in compliance with all of the
performance standards of this subdivision, the character and quality of
existing neighborhoods will be protected.
B. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definition
shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different
meaning.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) means a subordinate habitable dwelling
unit, which has its own basic requirements of shelter, heating, cooking and
sanitation, accessory to a single - family dwelling (hereinafter principal
dwelling unit).
C. Performance standards. No property within a single - family residential
district shall have more than one dwelling unit, except an ADU may be
permitted as conditional use to a single family dwelling when the
following requirements are met:
1. The primary residence must be located on a lot within an R -1, Single
Family Rural zoning district with a ,,,:,,i.,-.,,, let n"° of 2.5 a^r-°^
2. The property owner must reside in either the primary residence or
the ADU as their permanent residence according to state law.
3. An ADU may not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in
ownership from the primary residence structure.
4. An ADU's total floor area shall be no more than 900 square feet and
not less than 400 square feet.
5. An ADU shall be designed and maintained as to be consistent with
the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the
primary residence as a single - family residence. An ADU shall not
extend beyond the height of the primary residence.
6. Two off - street parking spaces shall be required for the ADU, in
addition to the off - street parking spaces required for the primary
residence. An additional garage may be constructed, provided it
complies with all state and city regulations.
7. No more than one ADU shall be permitted on a lot or parcel.
8. An ADU shall have a permanent foundation. Houses on wheels or
trailers shall be prohibited.
9. An ADU shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with all
state laws, state building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and fire
code regulations and City Code requirements.
10. The primary residence and ADU shall be constructed and
maintained in compliance with the property maintenance regulations
set forth in the City Code.
11. Rental of the accessory dwelling unit, or rental of the principal
dwelling unit if the property owner resides in the accessory dwelling
unit, shall require a City rental license pursuant to the City Code.
It is unlawful for a property owner to construct or allow occupancy
within an ADU that does not comply with all of the foregoing
requirements.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — February 23, 2016
Page 7
,DRAFr
1 Mayor Trade pointed out the Code states the property o r must have an alternate plan in case
2 the license is not renewed. This message needs a given to the property owners in time for
3 them to create an alternate plan.
4
5 Councilmember Knight su ed the property owners be informed of what to expect when staff
6 1 es for inspectio a said student health should be emphasized.
7
8 It was onsensus of the Council to direct staff to conduct both Building and Fire ins ections.
9 o ro en s, mod and health.
DISCUSSACCESSORYDWELLING UNITS
2
13 Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council's past discussion relating to Accessory Dwelling Units
14 (ADU) and recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission to allow ADUs in the R -1,
15 Single - Family Rural Zoning District as a detached accessory structure by the granting of a
16 Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He stated the property must be 2.5 acres, and the property owner
17 must reside there. Two off -street parking spaces would be required. There would be no
18 common entrance into both homes. An ADU shall have a permanent foundation, which means
19 no tiny homes are allowed.
20
21 Mr. Carlberg asked the City Council to provide direction on whether or not the City should
22 amend the City Code to allow ADUs as recommended.
23
24 Discussion took place on Number 11 in the draft ordinance amendment on whether the ADU
25 could be licensed for rental. The Code allows for rental of the primary unit, or the ADU, as long
26 as the property owner lives in one, and obtains a rental license.
27
28 Councilmember Knight asked if someone lived in an ADU, could they also have a home
29 occupation there.
30
31 Mr. Carlberg said there are provisions for home occupations. However, they would need to be in
32 the principal structure. Home businesses should not be in the accessory structure.
33
34 Mayor Trade advised it should be made clear that an ADU cannot be converted to commercial
35 use. In a principal structure, 20% of it can be dedicated to a home business.
36
37 The Council reached consensus to leave Number 11 as written.
38
39 Councilmember Goodrich commented the fact of renting these at all is unique. He asked if it is
40 common to rent second buildings. Mr. Patch answered any portion of a principal home can be
41 rented. In addition, there can be up to five unrelated people living in a home.
42
43 Mr. Carlberg stated a Conditional Use Permit goes with the land.
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
o�Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —February 23, 2016
Page 8
Councilmember Holthus asked how many "granny flats" are in the City. Mr. Patch answered he
is aware of four. They are considered a guest cottage, which is not allowed to have a full
kitchen.
Councilmember Holthus questioned the cost of a small granny flat. Mr. Patch responded it could
reach $100,000.
Councilmember Goodrich asked what the Council thought of the 2.5 acre requirement. Mr.
Carlberg noted 2.5 acres is the minimum in rural R -1 zoning. If it is not rural R -1, there is not a
2.5 acre minimum. A separate ADU cannot be constructed if it is only 1 acre, even if it is R -1
zoned. An attached structure could be added on, however.
Mayor Trade stated she would be willing to drop the acreage requirement from 2.5 to 2.
Councilmember Goodrich said he thought there is room to put a small 400 square foot building
on a 1 acre lot, depending on the configuration of the lot. Mr. Patch stated a small ADU could
possibly be constructed for around $60,000. If it is constructed with a permit, it can be evaluated
along the way with a CUP. Mr. Carlberg noted the easements and lot configuration would have
a large bearing on whether it could work.
It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to omit the 2.5 acre requirement, and leave the
requirement of R -1 zoning in.
REGULATIONS
Mr. lberg explained the City has received a request to install a freestanding solar energy
system a residential property, which prompted staff to investigate the regulations of other
cities. He p sented the regulations used by other cities.
Mr. Carlberg aske f the Council would like to incorporate provisions such as the City of
Lakeville has, or if th would like to consider just roof top, stand -alone type solar panels. He
noted more research shoNd be conducted.
Mayor Trade stated the bigger terns should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Councilmember Knight stated if the syste have not been used for one year, they must be
removed.
Mr. Carlberg suggested looking at the lighting code to e if it addresses glare. He stated he will
show the Planning and Zoning Commission the codes fro e cities of Lakeville and
Rosemount. He added the focus for this item will be urimaril n residential.
It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to take the item to Planning and Zoning
Commission for further discussion.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 15, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Dickinson stated they could do some ponding on the land if they did roprovements in
the area.
Mayor Trade stated she talked to Gretchen Sabel of the Open Space mmission who went out
and looked at the property and stated there are a lot of trees but is no ig enough and they would
not have chosen it for open space. The landlocked property is no uildable at all from what staff
has told her. Mr. Haas indicated the property is landlocked Ad has a lot of water on it. He
thought it might have been tax forfeit but did not designate iA park land.
Mayor Trade asked if the second property actually a ed to the City stormwater management
system. Mr. Haas stated there would be some co to do survey work, an easement on the
property, a description written on it if they want to sell the property. Mr. Dickinson stated
there are nine parcels abutting the parcel. Mr. aas stated the Park and Recreation Commission
recommended both properties to be sold. M or Trade did not think there would be any money
from a sale, if anything it would cost th e ty money. Mr. Haas stated they might get some tax
revenue back if someone were to purc e the parcels. Councilmember Bukkila stated the cost
to do all of the work could be rolled i o the purchase price of the parcels. Staff indicated that is
correct.
Consensus was to keep the pajXs as passive parks.
DISCUSS PARK SIGNAD IVERTISEMENT POLICY
Mr. Haas explained e City Council is requested to consider amending the Park Advertising
Policy to allow buAnesses to advertise directly with the City in the parks and/or facilities.
Mayor Trud thought they needed to go back and find out why they originally made the
agreement ith the Associations. Mr. Haas stated it was done so the Associations could make
money.
Goodrich stated he is not interested in cutting out the Associations. The Council
® DISCUSSACCESSORYDRELLING UNITS
Mayor Trade stated this item came up at Night to Unite by someone who wanted to build a unit
to allow their mother to live with them and stay independent.
Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council is requested to discuss and provide direction to staff on
the City Council's desire to amend the City Code to allow accessory dwelling units.
Councilmember Knight thought if this issue is happening nationwide they should look at this.
The Council concurred to have the Planning and Zoning Commission look at this.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would only want to allow this on larger parcels.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 15, 2015
Page 3
Mayor Trade asked if the current city ordinances allow this type of structure. Mr. Carlberg
stated they can have guest home type structures in the City but kitchens in them are not allowed.
Councilmember Goodrich asked if there were any downfalls to allowing the accessory dwelling
units. Mr. Carlberg stated there has not been enough research done on them as of yet.
Councilmember Bukkila stated the concerns are how will people prove a familial relationship
and what authority do they carry otherwise. She stated even if the original intent is for a family
member, the situation is what will happen down the road. She stated this becomes a property
rights issue and they need to look at the parking, congestion, impact to schools and use of
services and roads. Mayor Trade stated when she looked at the City of Minneapolis code they
had everything covered that Councilmember Bukkila mentioned and more.
Mayor Trade thought it would be a good idea for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
review this and find any issues with it that might come up for the Council to look at.
Councilmember Bukkila stated as a tag along they will end up with a renter situation, they will
need an eviction process along with possibly of more domestic issues. Mr. Carlberg stated it
could be regulated by a rental license.
Fire Chief Streich reviewed his personal situation and the requirements in his community. He
stated with the cost of senior housing, many cannot afford it and it would break some people.
Councilmember Knight asked if they could put an age limit on it. Mayor Trade stated the person
who brought this up has a daughter who has special needs but wants to be independent.
Councilmember Bukkila did not think it will happen in volume from the start but they do not
want to be so narrow minded as to not look ahead to find out what could happen in thirty years.
Mayor Trade thought the Planning and Zoning Commission should look at this and bring it
forward to the City Council for discussion. Councilmember Bukkila stated she would like to
review this item before it went to the Planning and Zoning Commission and see other city's
ordinances regarding this.
Councilmember Holthus thought it would be good for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
look at this because they may have a different perspective of it.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would like to see more drafts from other cities before it
would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission because if they are not comfortable, as a
Council with the idea, she wondered if it is worth having the Planning and Zoning Commission
spending time on it. She thought the Council could do the first blush with staff's help rather than
give it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Consensus of the Council was to have the Planning and Zoning Commission review this and
bring it back to the Council before proceeding with a public hearing on the topic.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 20, 2015
Page 3
talk with the churches regarding their plans with the structures.
ACCESSORYDWELLING UNITS (ADL9
Mr. Carlberg explained at the September 15, 2015 City Council work session, Council discussed
an article in the Star Tribune "Granny flats" may find a home in Inver Grove Heights and gave
the Planning and Zoning Commission direction to discuss the possibility of allowing ADU's
within the City of Andover.
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the staff report with the Council.
Mayor Trude thought they would want to get some public input regarding this item. She stated
no one else is doing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for these and she thought they would want
some neighborhood input to these.
Councilmember Holthus wondered if the structures would be like mobile homes. Mr. Carlberg
stated the building code has a lot of requirements that would be used for these types of structures.
He stated they would want to make sure it is more of a permanent structure rather than a portable
type of home.
The Council would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue to work on a possible
ordinance.
Mr. Dickinson ed the City of Andover 2015 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of
$9,876,575 an d tot enditures of $10,364,730 (includes $26,000 of 2014 budget carry
forward); a decrease in fun ance is planned.
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the information h the Council.
SEPTEMBER 2015 CITYINVESTMENTS
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the City investments with the
Mayor Trude asked how the cash carry forward (Fund Balance) is loofa Mr. Dickinson stated
it is looking good.
2016 BUDGET & 2 016-2 02 0 CIP DEVELOPMENT UPDATES
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the 2016 budget and CIP development with the Council, in particular
available General Fund Balance.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Daninger on November 10, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Lynae
Gudmundson, Bert Koehler, Kyle Nemeth, and Jeff Sims.
Commissioners absent: Tim Cleven, Steve Peterson
Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
Others
DISCUSSACCESSORYDWELLING UNITS
Mr. Carlberg introduced Mr. Doug Determan, Andover resident and also the Deputy
Building Official with the City of Minneapolis who made a presentation to the Planning
Commission on accessory dwelling units (ADU) and the experiences the City of
Minneapolis has encountered implementing ADU regulations.
Mr. Carlberg asked what the pattern was in Minneapolis for the twenty approved ADU.
Mr. Determan stated part of the reason zoning wanted to get going on ADU is because
the rental licensing department discovered illegal units and there was no pathway to make
these legal. He noted some of the twenty approved ADU have been illegal units for
years.
Mr. Determan stated the ADU has to be owner occupied but the occupant of the other
dwelling does not have to be family. It can be a rental situation and a choice the City of
Minneapolis made. 800 square feet is the maximum size of the ADU unless it is attic
space.
Mr. Determan reviewed the regulations for ADU in Minneapolis with the Commission
and showed some photos of ADU.
Mr. Carlberg stated they will have to talk about if they want to start in the rural area of
the City with detached units so they do not start getting into duplex type of housing units
because once they have that then they start running into possible rental licensing issues.
Chairperson Daninger thanked Mr. Determan for the presentation and thought it was
interesting to see how a large city handles these types of units.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes —November 10, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Carlberg reviewed some ADU regulations the Planning Commission might want to
review.
Chairperson Daninger asked why they are considering regulating ADU. He thought it
was in order to make sure they do not get illegal units or uncontrolled structures.
Commissioner Nemeth agreed with Commissioner Gudmundson' previous statements
regarding requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and having it come before them to
get a CUP for the ADU. This will allow the City to have some input in what is being
built.
Chairperson Daninger asked what is controlling this discussion. Mr. Carlberg stated this
was driven by a question from a resident at Night to Unite and the Council's direction
was instead of just guest houses where they can't have kitchen facilities, they should start
looking at ADU to accommodate the return of the grandparents, parents or children to the
home. There has been some interest from residents but the big picture is this is becoming
a trend and they are seeing a lot of cities creating regulations in the past year and this is
something that needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Gudmundson stated from a research position there are several in Andover
that are not legal at this time. Commissioner Nemeth thought it is also a matter of safety.
He thought this was like the single family rentals and they will have to rely on people to
be honest that they are building or improving a portion of their home and coming to the
City for approval.
Commissioner Gudmundson thought what Mr. Determan said about tiny houses is a good
point and thought they should add the requirement of footings or a foundation. She
indicated she did not have a problem with attached units but she thought maybe to help
with the issue of becoming more like a duplex maybe they could do a percentage of the
above grade part of the house. This might keep it accessory sized. She thought the ADU
should be required to match the principal residence. The building codes are another thing
that would need to be addressed.
Commissioner Koehler asked what defined a kitchen. Mr. Carlberg thought it would be
cooking facilities other than a microwave. Mr. Koehler stated if the kitchen is the
defining factor, they need to define the kitchen. He did not think that the size of the
dwelling should be limited because some couples may need more than one bedroom to
live in.
Commissioner Nemeth did not think the accessory dwelling should be regulated for
related family members only because of the way relationships are today. Commissioner
Koehler agreed. Chairperson Daninger thought the home needs to be owner occupied but
agreed that the accessory dwelling would not need to be related to the owner of the
property.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — November 10, 2015
Page 3
Mr. Carlberg stated that it might be wise to have the ADU secure a rental license no
matter who is living there. The Commission agreed on that. Commissioner Nemeth
stated he did not want to box them in too much because of all of the different
circumstance that could occur.
Commissioner Koehler stated they could put limits on the number of people allowed to
live in the accessory dwelling such as two per bedroom.
The Commission discussed regulations and size of the dwelling accessory.
Commissioner Gudmundson thought they should put a limit of one bedroom because the
more bedrooms added makes it more advantageous of making it a rental and they do not
necessarily want to go that way. Mr. Carlberg stated some cities did limit the ADU based
on the square footage of the unit, but some allowed two bedrooms or a certain number of
people to occupy the unit.
Commissioner Nemeth stated another point he liked was having the ADU be a certain
percentage of the actual primary residence footprint. He was leaning towards twenty -five
percent.
Mr. Carlberg thought if the Commission wanted to use a percentage of the unit, it should
be based on the footprint of the livable portion of the residence otherwise the ADU could
be quite large.
Commissioner Nemeth stated he would like to see something regarding septic systems
and having it certified to handle the additional space. Mr. Carlberg stated there are
regulations regarding this as the septic design is based on the number of bedrooms.
Mr. Carlberg stated staff will take the information and bring it forward to another
worksession meeting in December.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Community Development Director Carlberg updated the Planning Commission on related
items.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Nemeth, seconded by Koehler, to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Cleven, Peterson) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING —
DECEMBER 8, 201 S
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Daninger on December 8, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Commissioners Timothy Cleven, Bert Koehler 1V, Kyle
Nemeth, and Jeff Sims (arrived at 6:39 p.m.).
Commissioners absent: Commissioners Lynae Gudmundson and Steve Peterson
Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
City Building Official Fred Patch
Others
DISCUSSACCESSORYDWELLING UNITS
Mr. Carlberg made a presentation to the Planning Commission on accessory dwelling
units (ADU) and the provisions to allow them in the City of Andover. Based on feedback
from the Commission, staff prepared a draft ordinance amendment for the Commission's
consideration. Research was carried out utilizing the ordinances of several different local
cities.
Commissioners expressed their desire that a 2.5 -acre minimum lot requirement be
maintained in this draft due to an effort to protect the privacy of adjacent neighbors. This
clarification should be added to section C.1.
Commissioner Cleven asked for clarification on why the draft ordinance would state that
the property owner must reside in the home not less than 183 days per calendar year.
There was further discussion regarding the number of days. It was determined that 185 is
required for Minnesota residency.
Commissioner Nemeth inquired as to if requiring residents to homestead would suffice
and resolve the issue.
Mr. Carlberg replied he believed that was where the draft language came from.
Commissioner Koehler inquired if a resident could homestead in an ADU.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes —December 8, 2015
Page 2
The Commission discussed homestead regulations and how the draft ordinance would
potentially affect ADU owners and occupants, specifically those with two homes.
Mr. Patch indicated that it is important to have good guidelines, but if it came to
enforcement, it would be difficult.
Commissioner Koehler stated that the ordinance is more for intent than enforcement, for
example in the case of someone moving out of state.
Mr. Patch stated, in the past, that in order to qualify for homestead, one needed to reside
on the property on January 1.
Commissioner Nemeth asked to take his comment "off the table," because in the case of a
snowbird, they would still "reside" as stated in the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Koehler requested that the ordinance be ` wordsmithed" to represent the
intention to reside.
The Commission discussed how to limit the size of an ADU.
Mr. Carlberg clarified that one property can have two addresses, e.g. Suite A and Suite B.
He further stated, in reference to section CA of the draft ordinance, that staff has a
preference for a maximum and minimum size for the ADU.
Chairperson Daninger recommended that the ordinance be changed to state that the floor
area be limited to 500 — 900 square feet, based on the trend research done by other cities.
Mr. Patch recommended that the wording "residential floor area" be used. He further
explained that "dwellings" are all kinds of buildings including sheds, etc. So it is useful
to distinguish what is residential from a building code standpoint.
Commissioner Koehler questioned what would happen if a big garage is attached to a
home that included residential space.
Mr. Carlberg clarified that only the residential part of the building would be considered
an ADU and that the garage itself would not be part of the ADU.
Mr. Patch said that the second floor could possibly be a separate dwelling.
Commissioner Nemeth expressed his desire to include section C.5 in the draft ordinance
amendment, which refers to the ADU not being permitted, if the building coverage
exceeds or will exceed, with the ADU, 20 percent of the lot or parcel.
Chairperson Daninger requested that section C.5 be re -written for clarity.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes —December 8, 2015
Page 3
Mr. Carlberg recommended that the section (C.5) be struck as it applies to a rural lot.
Mr. Patch stated that section C.8, regarding the number of bedrooms, is redundant to
existing provisions.
Chairperson Daninger explained that even though it is redundant, it is good to have all of
the details in one place, instead of an asterisk to another ordinance.
Commissioner Koehler asked the question, "If everything meets code, why do we care
about the number of bedrooms ?"
Chairperson Daninger stated that this question could be brought to the Council.
Commissioner Koehler expressed that there are examples of families that need affordable
housing with more bedrooms, however he is all for limiting the "frat house."
Mr. Carlberg stated that this provision was included to make the ADU accessory.
Chairperson Daninger asked that the bedroom requirement section be flagged and that the
full Commission be in attendance in order to discuss it further as there has been quite a
bit of debate.
Commissioner Koehler asked if section C.9 would limit two cars to be parked outside.
Mr. Carlberg stated that the proposed ordinance amendment would not limit the number
of cars that can be parked on a particular property, although cars must be parked on the
driveway or other allowed surfaces.
In reference to an additional garage being built, Commissioner Nemeth asked if a permit
would be required.
Mr. Carlberg confirmed that a minimum of two parking spots would be required and that
a permit would be required to build a garage.
Mr. Patch explained the differentiation between a single and two - family dwelling in
reference to section C.11. The key point is what is the separation between the two
dwellings. He continued by stating that the change of occupancy is complicated and has
a significant number of requirements related to sprinklers, etc. In this case, a home has to
remain a single family dwelling. A distinction is that the wiring, plumbing, and fire
alarm system is connected. These types of homes are already all over the state. As long
as the two living spaces are interconnected, it is considered a single - family dwelling. Mr.
Patch showed examples of homes fitting this criterion. The placement of separate
exterior doors was discussed as well. He also explained why in some ways this type of
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — December 8, 2015
Page 4
set up can be no different than a master bedroom suite. He said that he needed to spend
more time looking at the issue from a building code perspective.
Commissioner Sims arrived at 6:39 p.m.
Mr. Patch stated that an attached ADU needs to have a door between, and if it is through
the garage, that qualifies. He told the Commission to forget about the idea of an attached
ADU, because there is already code for that. If an ADU is detached, that is another
matter, and that is what the City needs provision for.
Mr. Carlberg reminded the Commissioners that guesthouses are permitted, but they do
not have kitchens.
Commissioner Koehler asked for clarification. If an ADU is attached, was there really a
reason to discuss the matter further, because the City already has a code for that.
Mr. Patch stated that if an ADU is a completely separate building, current building code
will not allow for that. He continued by saying that state building code does not address
this situation very well.
Commissioner Cleven reiterated by saying that if you put a door inside, between units, it
is one residence.
Chairperson Daninger inquired if Mr. Patch could come to another workshop meeting, in
January, as he did not want to rush through the discussion of the rest of the draft
ordinance amendment.
Mr. Carlberg indicated that the group could hold another workshop at 6 pm before the
January 13, 2016, regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Ii71tIII17'Ji�L�11�
Motion by Nemeth, seconded by Cleven, to adjourn the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 - absent vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marlene White, Recording Secretary
Timesaver Off Site ,Secretarial, Inc.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
9 JANUARY 13, 2016
10
11 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
12 order by Vice Chairperson Nemeth on January 13, 1-016, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
13 Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover. Minnesota.
14
15 Commissioners present: Commissioners I,ynae Gudmundson, Bert Koehler IV, and
16 Kyle Nemeth.
17
18 Commissioners absent: Chairperson Dean Daninger and Commissioner_sTimothy
19 Cleven Steve Peterson, and Jeff Sims.
20 €;mot:..
21 Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
22 ff& Building Official Fred Patch
u$
23 ice, �.:.y. EVIL
24 TO"erg
25 CONTINUEDI966SSIONOIj4 CCESSCi LYDWELLING UNITS
27 Mr. Ca vided a presentation' to the Planning Commission regarding accessory
28 dwelling amts r1DU)
29
30 Cominrssioner Koehler stated that the focus should be on the detached unit and the
31 attached;ilnt.that does not meet building specifications, such as separate entries that are
32 completelyalled off.
-
33 = w
34 Mr. Patch stated ak_would,"cinge the designation from IRC 1 to IRC2, noting that it
35 would be inconcelval I0- to Oce the units one.
36
37 Mr. Carlberg stated that the City only allows a single family home on a single - family lot
38 and does not allow for duplexes on that type of lot. He stated that staff is recommending
39 to residents that wish to have that type of dwelling addition to keep the addition attached
40 to the home and have a common access way in order to comply with the ordinance.
41
42 Mr. Patch stated that the home could have multiple kitchens and could have shared or
43 separate facilities as long as it is all connected. He specified that the Code would allow
44 for up to five unrelated individuals living in the home as a family and still be considered
45 a single family home.
46
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — January 13, 2016
Page 2
1 Mr. Carlberg confirmed the consensus of the Commission to only consider detached units
2 and reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinances per the previous discussion of the
3 Commission. He referenced the requirement that specifies the owner must reside in the
4 home for no less than 185 days per calendar year and asked if the Commission would
5 want to include that in the ordinance. He confirmed that the state statute defines
6 residency as living in a place for no less than six months of the year and that statute
7 would remain in place to govern should this language not be included in the ordinance. It
8 was the consensus of the Commission to leave the first sentence stating "the property
9 owner must reside in either the primary residence or the ADU as their permanent
to residence as according to state law" and delete the second sentence in its entirety.
11
12 Mr. Carlberg referenced the condition regarding bedrooms for the ADU, which limits
13 bedrooms at two.
14
15 Commissioner Koehler stated that he would be in favor of not including a number of
16 bedrooms as the City Code would guide that aspect and he would not want to limit the
17 design as long as code requirements are met.
18
19 Mr. Patch stated that it is important that the primary structure remain as the primary
20 structure in size. He noted that there are specifications for septic requirements that are
21 tied to the number of bedrooms as well.
22
23 Commissioner Koehler stated that is his point exactly; there are other specifications that
24 will limit that aspect on its own.
25
26 Mr. Patch provided an example of a pool house that a resident was building this past fall
27 that would be used for multiple uses. He stated that his worry would be that the person
28 could then load that small structure with a number of beds.
29
30 Commissioner Koehler stated that if a person is willing to invest the funds to enlarge the
31 septic to the required size to support the number of bedrooms and meet the other Code
32 requirements, the City should not care about the number of bedrooms.
33
34 Mr. Patch stated that he would like to think about that a bit further. He stated that he
35 believes that it would be self - limiting under the current building codes as well but just
36 wants to ensure that mass sleeping "bunk houses" would not be constructed. He noted
37 that there are safety concerns for that type of setup.
38
39 Mr. Carlberg stated that the City would have two opportunities to review the application
40 through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review and the building permit review. He
41 noted that it would be a large investment for a resident to build a structure of this size,
42 because of the minimum size of 500 square feet, and to go through the process that will
43 be required with a CUP. It was the consensus of the Commission to not include a
44 maximum number of bedrooms. Mr. Carlberg referenced the item regarding addresses
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — January 13, 2016
Page 3
1 and it was the consensus of the Commission to follow up with the Fire Department to
2 determine their opinion on the matter.
3
4 Mr. Patch noted that it would also be difficult to add in additional addresses as that can
5 cause confusion for mail delivery and GPS use.
6
7 Mr. Carlberg stated that his intent would be to bring this item to the City Council at a
8 February worksession to review.
9
10 Mr. Patch stated that in his opinion perhaps the minimum size for an ADU could be
I 1 reduced from 500 square feet to 400 square feet based on the availability and design of
12 construction materials. The Commission agreed.
13
14
15 OTHER BUSINESS.
16
17 Mr. Carlberg updated the Planning Commission on related items. He distributed a flyer
18 for an upcoming meeting on Tuesday, January 26`, and will be hosted at the Coon Rapids
19 City Center by the Alliance for Sustainability. He noted that staff will be attending the
20 workshop at 3:30 p.m. He noted that interested Commissioners could also attend or find
21 more information on the website. He stated that staff can collect literature and make a
22 short presentation to the Commission at a future meeting.
23
24
25 ADJOURNMENT.
26
27 Motion by Gudmundson, seconded by Koehler, to adjourn the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
28 Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 0 -nays, 4- absent (Daninger, Cleven, Peterson, and Sims)
29 vote.
30
31
32 Respectfully Submitted,
33
34 Amanda Staple, Recording Secretary
35 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
36
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Definition
A subordinate habitable dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit has cooking facilities, sanitary
facilities and an independent means of access, attached to the single family dwelling unit/garage
(attached or detached).
Apple Valley
Permitted accessory use
Allowed in Zone 1
No more than 2 occupants provided 2 off street surface parking spaces exist
Dwelling shall not exceed 900 sf
Eagan
Permitted accessory use
Allowed in Estate District (16,000 sf) and R1 (12,000 sf)
Property owner must reside in primary residence or ADU.
Dwelling shall be no more than 960 sf or 33% of the primary residences footprint, whichever is
less. An ADU shall not be less than 300 ft.
Shall not contain no more than 2 bedrooms
Must be located within or attached to the primary residence
Must be connected to municipal sewer and water
Elk River
Permitted accessory use, need license from the Fire Chief and a rental license
Property owner must reside on the property
Dwelling size must be between 250 ft — 1,000 sf
No more than 2 bedrooms
No front yard entrance
Can be attached or detached from the primary residence
--Farmington -
Allowed with a conditional use permit
Allowed in the Ag District, R2 (6,000 sf) and R5 (40,000 sf -12 units /acre)
Property owner must reside on the property
Dwelling maximum size is 1,800 sf
Lakeville
Permitted with an Administrative Permit from the Zoning Administrator
Must be attached to primary residence with an interior connection between to the 2 living
quarters
Must have municipal sewer and water available
Must have 3 garage stalls attached to the residence
No more than 2 occupants
Minneapolis
Permitted with an Administrative Permit from Zoning Administrator
Can be internal to the principal structure, attached or detached
Internal and attached — limited to 800 sf, no external stairs
Detached — Limited to 1,000 sf, can have external stairs
Property owner must reside on property
Plymouth
Allowed in the following districts: Rural (1 acre), urban 12,500 sf — 18,000 sf)
Permitted with an Administrative Permit
Must be located above an attached or detached garage
Shall not exceed 1,000 sf or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less
Property owner must reside on the property
2 off street parking spaces shall be provided
1Gfust be connecte to municipal sewer and water
Richfield
Permitted accessory use
Can be attached or detached from the primary residence
Shall be between 300 ft — 800 sf or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is
less
A minimum of 3 off - street parking spaces is required in order to add an ADU of any kind
Roseville
Allowed in the LDR -1 District (11,000 sf- 12,500 sf
Allowed with a nontransferable ADU Occupancy Permit from the Community Development
Department
Property owner must reside on the property
Shall be 300 sf - 650 sf, but in no case shall it exceed 75% of the principal dwellings four season
living area
Must provide 1 off - street parking space
Occupancy is limited to 2 people
Maximum of 1 bedroom
Shoreview
Allowed in Estate and Detached single family district
Permitted with an Administrative Permit by the City Manager. Permit must be renewed upon the
sale of the home
Cannot be more than 30% of the buildings total floor area nor greater than 800 sf with a
minimum of 500 sf of living space
Maximum 2 bedrooms
Property owner must reside on the property
No front entrances shall be added to the house to access the apartment
3 off - street parking spaces shall be provided, Z of which must be enclosed
C I T Y O F
,ND OVE.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss Solar Energy System Regulations
DATE: March 8, 2016
REQUEST
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to discuss regulations
regarding Solar Energy Systems as directed by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
The City has received a recent request to install a freestanding Solar Energy
System on a residential property. This request has prompted city staff to
investigate other city's regulations regarding Solar Energy Systems. Staff in
researching Solar Energy System regulations found the following commonalities:
• Are allowed as a permitted accessory use.
• Both roof and ground mounted are permitted.
• Height and setback requirements apply.
• Have abandonment provisions.
• Require a building permit.
• Require compliance with state building and electrical codes.
• Require certifications (Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.)
• Rooftop mounted units are required to have color matching piping to roof
or solar panel unit and may not hang over edge of roof.
• Ground mounted units are required to be screened, located in rear yard, and
may not encroach on drainage and utility easements.
Staff has attached the City of Lakeville's and the City of Rosemount's ordinances
as the most complete examples for Commission review and consideration.
Attachments
City of Lakeville's Ordinance
City of Rosemount's Ordinance
Respectfully Submitted,
QW V/ d4&�
David L. Carlberg
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —February 23, 2016
Page 8
DRAFT
1 Councilmember Holthus asked how many "granny flats" are in the Ci . Patch answered he
2 is aware of four. They are considered a guest cottage, which i of allowed to have a full
3 kitchen.
4
5 Councilmember Holthus questioned the cost of a small y flat. Mr. Patch responded it could
6 reach $100,000.
7
8 Councilmember Goodrich asked what the C cil thought of the 2.5 acre requirement. Mr.
9 Carlberg noted 2.5 acres is the minimum' al R -1 zoning. If it is not rural R -1, there is not a
10 2.5 acre minimum. A separate ADU of be constructed if it is only 1 acre, even if it is R -1
11 zoned. An attached structure coul a added on, however.
12
13 Mayor Trude stated she uld be willing to drop the acreage requirement from 2.5 to 2.
14 Councilmember Goodr' said he thought there is room to put a small 400 square foot building
15 on a 1 acre lot, de p ding on the configuration of the lot. Mr. Patch stated a small ADU could
16 possibly be con cted for around $60,000. If it is constructed with a permit, it can be evaluated
17 a] 'long thew with a CUP. Mr. Carlberg noted the easements and lot configuration would have
18 a large be g on whether it could work.
19
20 It the consensus of the Council to direct staff to omit the 2.5 acre requirement, and leave the
21 - zomng in.
22
DIS C USS SOLAR ENER G Y S YS TEM RE G ULA TIONS
25 Mr. Carlberg explained the City has received a request to install a freestanding solar energy
26 system on a residential property, which prompted staff to investigate the regulations of other
27 cities. He presented the regulations used by other cities.
28
29 Mr. Carlberg asked if the Council would like to incorporate provisions such as the City of
30 Lakeville has, or if they would like to consider just roof top, stand -alone type solar panels. He
31 noted more research should be conducted.
32
33 Mayor Trude stated the bigger systems should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
34 Commission.
35
36 Councilmember Knight stated if the systems have not been used for one year, they must be
37 removed.
38
39 Mr. Carlberg suggested looking at the lighting code to see if it addresses glare. He stated he will
40 show the Planning and Zoning Commission the codes from the cities of Lakeville and
41 Rosemount. He added the focus for this item will be primarily on residential.
42
43 It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to take the item to the Planning and Zoning
44 Commission for further discussion.
Lakeville
11 -29 -5: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS:' D
A. Accessory Use:
1. Solar energy systems shall be allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning
districts in accordance with the standards in this section.
2. The following systems shall be exempt from the requirements of this section and shall
be regulated as any other building element:
a. Building integrated solar energy systems that are an integral part of a principal or
accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting
for an architectural element or structural component including, but not limited to,
photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems contained within roofing materials,
windows, skylights and awnings.
b. Passive solar energy systems that capture solar light or heat without transforming it into
another form of energy or transferring the heat via a heat exchanger.
B. System Standards:
1. Electrical:
a. All utilities shall be installed underground.
b. An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be installed at the electric meter serving the
property.
c. Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in
conformance with the national electrical code as adopted by the city.
d. No solar energy system shall be interconnected with a local electrical utility company
until the utility company has reviewed and commented upon it. The interconnection of
the solar energy system with the utility company shall adhere to the national electrical
code as adopted by the city.
2. Maximum Area: Ground mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum
area of one hundred twenty (120) square feet.
3. Color: All roof mounted solar energy systems shall use colors that are the same or
similar with the color of the roof material of the building on which the system is mounted.
C. Location:
1. Roof mounting:
a. The solar energy system shall comply with the maximum height requirements of the
applicable zoning district.
b. The solar energy system shall not extend beyond the perimeter of the exterior walls of
the building on which it is mounted.
2. Ground mounting:
a. The solar energy system shall only be located in the rear yard as defined by this title.
b. The solar energy system shall comply with the maximum height requirements for
accessory buildings for the applicable zoning district.
c. All components of the solar energy system shall be set back a minimum of five feet (6)
from interior side lot lines and ten feet (10') from rear lot lines.
d. Solar energy systems shall not encroach upon drainage and utility easements.
D. Screening: Solar energy systems shall be screened in accordance with the
requirements of section 11 -21 -13 of this title to the extent possible without affecting
their function.
E. Certification: The solar energy system shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., and comply to the requirements of the international building code.
F. Abandonment: Any solar energy system which is inoperable for twelve (12)
successive months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public
nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after
obtaining a demolition permit.
G. Building Permit: A building permit shall be obtained for any solar energy system prior
to installation. (Ord. 867, sec. 81, 5 -17 -2010)
11- 21 -13: SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: i O
All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment of residential buildings having
five (5) units or more and of nonresidential buildings shall comply with the following
standards:
A. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to
mitigate noise in compliance with section 11 -16 -25 of this title.
B. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be designed (including
exterior color) and located so as to be aesthetically harmonious and compatible with
the building. Screening of and landscaping around the equipment may be required
where the design, color, and location of the equipment are found to not effectively
buffer noise or provide aesthetic harmony and compatibility. Screening shall be
constructed of durable materials which are aesthetically compatible with the
structure and which may be an integral part of the structure. Applicable requirements
for access to the equipment shall be observed in the design and construction of the
screening.
C. Rooftop mechanical equipment less than three feet (3') in height may be exempt from
screening requirements by the zoning administrator. (Ord. 674, sec. 1, 7 -17 -2000)
11- 16 -25: NOISE: qt' 0
Noises emanating from any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the
Minnesota pollution control agency in accordance with Minnesota statutes and rules, but
in no case shall noise emanations constitute a nuisance as defined and regulated by
this code. (Ord. 897, 12 -3 -2012)
Rosemount
1 -2 -12: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS: 0
A. Purpose And Intent: It is the goal of the city council, as expressed in the
comprehensive plan, for Rosemount to become a more sustainable community by
encouraging activities that conserve energy and result in less /no pollution output
such as alternative energy sources. In accordance with that goal, the city finds that it
is in the public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive
impact on energy production and conservation while not having an adverse impact
on the community. Therefore, the purposes of this section include:
1. To promote rather than restrict development of alternative energy sources by removing
regulatory barriers and creating a clear regulatory path for approving alternative energy
systems.
2. To create a livable community where development incorporates sustainable design
elements such as resource and energy conservation and use of renewable energy.
3. To protect and enhance air quality, limit the effects of climate change and decrease use
of fossil fuels.
4. To encourage alternative energy development in locations where the technology is
viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be mitigated.
B. Definitions: The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this title, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM: A ground source heat pump, wind or solar
energy system.
COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN: A solar electric (photovoltaic) array that provides
retail electric power (or a financial proxy for retail power) to multiple community
members or businesses residing or located off site from the location of the solar
energy system, under the provisions of Minnesota statutes 216B.1641 or successor
statute.
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM: An active solar energy system that converts solar
energy directly into electricity.
SOLAR COLLECTOR: A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which
the primary purpose is to capture sunlight and transform it into thermal, mechanical,
chemical, or electrical energy.
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 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 generation or water heating.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, ACTIVE: A solar energy system whose primary
purpose is to harvest energy by transferring solar energy into another form of energy
or transferring heat from a solar collector to another medium using mechanical,
electrical, or chemical means.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, BUILDING INTEGRATED: A solar energy system that
is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, 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 or substitute for roofing materials, windows, skylights, awnings
and shade devices.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, GRID INTERTIE: A photovoltaic solar energy system
that is connected to an electric circuit served by an electric utility company.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, GROUND MOUNTED: A freestanding solar system
mounted directly to the ground using a rack or pole rather than being mounted on a
building.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, OFF GRID: 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.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, PASSIVE: A system that captures solar light or heat
without transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat
exchanger.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, ROOF MOUNTED: A solar energy system mounted
directly or abutting the roof of a principal or accessory building.
SOLAR FARM: A commercial facility that converts sunlight into electricity, whether
by photovoltaic (PV), concentrating solar thermal devices (CST), or other conversion
technology, for the principal purpose of wholesale sales of generated electricity.
SOLAR HOT WATER SYSTEM (Also THERMAL SYSTEM): A system that includes
a solar collector 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 RESOURCE: A view of the sun from a specific point on a lot or building that
is not obscured by any vegetation, building, or object for a minimum of four (4) hours
between the hours of nine o'clock (9:00) A.M. and three o'clock (3:00) P.M. standard
time on any day of the year.
C. Solar Energy Systems: The following standards apply to solar energy systems,
subject to standards of the applicable zoning district in which they are located.
1. Exemptions: Passive or building integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the
requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element.
2. Uses: Roof mounted solar energy systems are an accessory use in some districts.
Ground mounted solar energy systems are an accessory use in the agricultural,
residential, PI - public and institutional, and industrial districts. Community solar gardens
or solar farms as defined in this section are an interim use in the following zoning district
outside the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA): AG - agricultural, PI - public and
institutional, LI - light industrial, GI - general industrial and HI - heavy industrial.
3. Setbacks: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the setbacks
requirement for the applicable zoning district and structure type (principal or accessory)
on which they are mounted and may encroach those setbacks per subsection 11-5 -
2C1 a, "Special Structural Elements ", of this title. Ground mounted solar energy systems
shall comply with the accessory structure setback standards for the applicable zoning
district in which they are located. Community solar gardens or solar farms shall comply
with the principal structure setback standards for the applicable zoning district in which
they are located.
4. Height: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the height standards of
the applicable zoning district. Roof mounted solar energy systems may be mounted at
an angle to the roof to improve their efficiency; however, the highest point of a solar
panel in any residential district shall not be more than three feet (3'), measured in a
straight line, above the roof upon which the panel is mounted. This three foot (3') height
limitation does not apply to roof mounted solar energy systems located in nonresidential
districts or on nonresidential uses. Ground mounted solar energy systems shall not
exceed fifteen feet (15) in height.
5. Aesthetics: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall be designed to blend into the
architecture of the building, provided that design considerations shall not diminish
energy production. The color of the solar collector is not required to be consistent with
other roofing materials. Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away
from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address
glare.
6. Screening: Roof mounted solar energy systems located in nonresidential districts or on
nonresidential uses shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of section
11 -2 -5 of this chapter and the screening requirements of the applicable zoning district to
the extent possible without reducing their efficiency. Ground mounted solar energy
systems, community solar gardens or solar farms shall be screened from view of the
public right of way to the extent possible without reducing their efficiency by setback,
berming, landscaping, walls or a combination thereof.
7. Coverage: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall not cover more than eighty
percent (80 %) of the south facing or flat roof upon which the panels are mounted and
shall be set back a minimum of one foot (1') from the edge of the roof. The surface area
of ground mounted systems shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage standard of the
applicable zoning district.
8. Feeder Lines: All power lines shall be placed underground within the interior of each
parcel.
9. 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.
10. Compliance With State Electric Code: All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the
Minnesota state electric code.
11. Compliance With State Plumbing Code: Solar thermal systems shall comply with
applicable Minnesota state plumbing code.
12. Certifications: Solar electric system components shall be certified by Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., and solar thermal systems shall be certified by the Solar Rating And
Certification Corporation, or other appropriate certification(s) as determined by the city.
The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed solar energy systems
deemed to have inadequate certification.
13. Utility Connection: All grid intertie systems shall have an agreement with the local
utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible external disconnect must be
provided if required by the utility. Off grid systems are exempt from this requirement.
14. Abandonment: If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a
continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall
constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their
expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire
structure including transmission equipment.
15. Permits: No solar energy system shall be erected, altered, improved, reconstructed,
maintained or moved in the city without first securing a permit from the city. Community
solar gardens or solar farms as defined in this section shall also require an interim use
permit.
16. Deviations: Deviations from the required standards for a solar energy system may be
addressed though a variance. (Ord. B -231, 3 -4 -2014)
C I T Y O F
ND OVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
CC: Dave Carlberg, Community Development Director
FROM: Brett Angell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Discuss Animal Regulations
DATE: March 8, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The City of Andover recently was contacted by a resident regarding a neighboring property
which keeps chickens. The report stated that during the warmer weather months, the chickens are
often allowed to roam freely across property lines and onto the adjacent roadways and properties.
Upon research of the Andover City Code, there are no ordinances that currently restrict animals,
beyond cats and dogs, from running at large.
A courtesy letter was sent to the property with chickens on February 8, 2016, asking the property
owners to ensure any poultry are not allowed to roam beyond property lines.
DISCUSSION
City staff has researched the animal regulations for the cities of Blaine, Eagan, Eden Prairie,
Lakeville and Rosemount to see how each city regulates animals. Upon review of each city, the
regulations vary in terms of the types of animals regulated and what requirements must be met
for each animal.
City staff created a draft ordinance for the general care of animals. The ordinance focuses on
ensuring proper care for animals, that animals are not allowed to roam free, and that animals do
not create a nuisance to adjacent properties.
At the February 23, 2016 City Council Workshop meeting, the Council discussed this item and
decided to pursue adopting an ordinance regarding the animal care. A draft of the meeting
minutes are attached.
ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission are asked to review and discuss the draft ordinance of
City Code 5 -IE: Care of Animals.
Respectfully,
Brett Angell
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Draft City Council Workshop Minutes
ARTICLE E. CARE OF ANIMALS
SECTION
5 -1E -1:
General Provisions
5 -1 E -2:
Animal Restraint
5 -1 E -3:
Nuisances
5 -1 E -4:
Violation; Penalty
5 -1 E -1: General Provisions:
A. Animals kept within the City shall be properly cared for by a person of sufficient
age, knowledge and experience to adequately and safely care for and control the
animal(s).
B. No owner of any animal shall fail to provide with:
1. Sufficient food, potable water, or proper diet appropriate for its species.
2. Proper shelter and protection from the weather appropriate for its species.
3. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and maintain the normal
health of the animal.
4. Humane care and treatment.
C. No person shall:
1. Abandon any animal anywhere within the city.
2. Beat, treat cruelly, torment or otherwise abuse any animal.
3. Cause or permit any animal fights.
4. Leave any animal unattended in a standing or parked motor vehicle in a
manner that endangers the animal's health or safety.
5 -1E -2: Animal Restraint:
A. No person owning or keeping an animal may permit the animal to run at large or
enter upon the premises of another without permission, nor may any such animal
be kept raised or permitted to go on any street, park, lake or public pond area
without proper restraint.
B. Animals which are permitted to roam and /or graze about a property must have a
suitable fencing system in place so as to restrain the animals from roaming
and /or grazing to the property of the person keeping or maintaining the animals.
1. The fence shall be of sufficient type so as to effectively control the animals
therein and to prevent an animal from crossing the boundaries established by
the fence.
2. Such a fence shall also be in compliance with all fencing regulations as set
forth in City Code Title 12 Chapter 7.
5 -1 E -3: Nuisances:
A. No person shall keep or harbor any animal in any unsanitary place or condition,
or in a manner that results in noisome odors or that annoys others by barking,
crying, howling, fighting or other similar noises.
B. No person shall feed animals in a manner that attracts wild animals, causes
property damage, allows for excessive amounts of feed to accumulate, or poses
a public health threat.
C. Property owners are required to clean all feces from their property as often as
necessary to prevent contamination to animals or humans and to avoid
nuisances from odors and breeding of insects, but in no case less than weekly.
5 -1 D -3: VIOLATION; PENALTY: Any person who shall violate
any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — February 23, 2016 tg
Page 9
DISCUSS ANIMAL REGULATIONS
4 Mr. Carlberg explained the City was recently contacted by a resident regarding a neighboring
5 property that kept chickens that were allowed to roam freely across property lines and into the
6 adjacent roadways and properties. Staff researched City Code and determined there are no
7 ordinances that restrict animals, beyond cats and dogs, from running at large.
8
9 Mr. Carlberg asked the City Council to provide direction on whether or not staff should draft a
10 new section of City Code addressing the general care of animals.
11
12 Councilmember Holthus asked what a person should do if a chicken ends up in their yard. Mr.
13 Carlberg replied the homeowner should call the City and the animal owner would be cited.
14 There is a section of the proposed draft code that refers to proper care, shelter, and control of
15 animals.
16
17 Discussion took place on whether roosters should be allowed, and the definition of wild versus
18 domesticated animals.
19
20 Councilmember Knight pointed out chickens can fly out of fenced areas, and language may need
21 to be added to the Code to provide covered, fenced areas for chickens. Mr. Carlberg responded
22 that will be researched.
23
24 Consensus was reached by the Council to further discuss the draft document with the Planning
25 and Zoning Commission.
26
93 GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL
28
29 ickinson presented the Four Counties' Governance Proposal supporting principles for
30 reform the Metropolitan Council. He stated the Governor has shown some interest in
31 staggered to r the members.
32
33 Mr. Dickinson reviewed creation of the proposal. He presented the Twin Cities' Local
34 Government Coalition - State t of Objectives and Principles. Paragraph 4 reads it is
35 necessary to provide strong County esentation. Currently, the members of the Council are
36 non - elected individuals, answerable only the Governor. The proposal indicates the Met
37 Council should be answerable to the citizens an ayers of the area it represents and should be
38 elected officials.
39
40 Councilmember Holthus stated based on new criteria for proje we are losing our ability to
41 access revenue in different streams. She asked if any of the road dol that are going to all the
42 counties affect Andover in a negative way. Mr. Dickinson explained thi ould because the
43 focused areas that meet the new criteria are not present in Andover. This area i mpeting for
44 those dollars with 494 and 35 verses Highway 10.