08-22-2017HOPKINS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
6:30 pm
THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL THE START OF
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ADOPT AGENDA
III. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of the July 25, 2017, Planning & Zoning Commission
V. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Planning Application 2017-11-CUP & VAR (WITHDRAWN)
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1. Planning Application 2017-06-TA: Alternative Energy Systems
2. Planning Application 2017-07-TA: Sign Ordinance Update
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins
IX. ADJOURN
UNOFFICIAL
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 25, 2017
A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on July 25, 2017, at
6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall.
Present were Commission Members Laura L. Daly, Kristin Hanneman, Brian Hunke, Matthew
McNeil, Emily Wallace-Jackson and James Warden. Commissioner Libby Goeman was absent.
Also present were Economic Development Intern Kurt Howard and City Planner Jason Lindahl.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hunke called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ADOPT AGENDA
Commissioner McNeil moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adopt the agenda. The
motion was approved unanimously.
OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS – none
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Daly moved, Commissioner Warden seconded, to approve the minutes of the June
27, 2017, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Planning Application 2017-06-TA: Alternative Energy Systems
Mr. Howard stated that this item has been initiated by staff to review the zoning code and identify
barriers to the implementation of solar energy systems by residents and businesses in accordance
with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the goals in Chapter 4 of the Hopkins Comprehensive
Plan. Staff is participating in the SolSmart program, which provides free technical assistance to
accomplish this objective, and preliminary stages of the program have included completion of a
zoning review, which staff is asking the Commission to evaluate and provide feedback on to inform
the preparation of a zoning code text amendment. SolSmart is a national designation program that
offers high profile recognition for communities that have taken key steps to make it cheaper and
easier to implement solar energy systems and signals to the solar energy business community that
Hopkins invites economic development founded on principles of sustainability and environmental
responsibility. The program addresses business process or administrative “soft” costs that increase
time and money for installation. Designation is granted contingent on completion of a combination
of required and elected steps for three levels of designation. Categories are weighted differently.
Two foundational categories are (1) Permitting and (2) Planning, Zoning and Development. There
are a number of other special focus categories. The City has submitted an initial application, which
triggered a review of the city code by SolSmart to identify gaps and obstacles in the language that
could be amended to further enable businesses and residents to install solar systems. Nine areas
were identified. Staff proposes that the Commission examine the review and provide feedback.
UNOFFICIAL
Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, July 25, 2017 – Page 2
Mr. Lindahl stated that although this is a national program, there is a local technical advisor working
in the Met Council offices here, and staff has asked about issues specific to Hopkins, such as the
landfill site, free-standing solar collectors, etc. This meeting serves to inform the Commission and
have discussion before staff presents the actual ordinance for review. The City is not bound by any
recommendation from SolSmart. Staff is looking at it from the viewpoint of what is good for
Hopkins.
In response to questions from Commission, Mr. Howard clarified which actions were required for
specific designations. He stated there is a lot of latitude in selecting actions.
Mr. Lindahl stated that the meeting tonight fulfills one requirement. In response to what can be
expected to be achieved, Mr. Lindahl stated that technology advances such as Tesla shingles have
and will continue to eliminate some of the need to regulate. Commissioners commented that solar
PV systems amount to 50 percent of the cost and other hardware and soft costs amount to the other
half. The Commission also asked about storage of energy and working with utility companies.
1. Planning Application 2017-07-TA: Sign Ordinance Update
Mr. Lindahl stated that discussion at this meeting will review the sign ordinance examples submitted
by the Commission last spring, a public hearing will be scheduled in the future, and sign regulations
are unique in that the content cannot be regulated because of First Amendment rights. He stated
traffic, safety and aesthetic concerns must be met to create regulations, and the City Attorney is
reviewing current regulations and the pamphlet from the League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. Lindahl
stated the goal is to streamline regulations City-wide. He presented an overview of examples of
present and potential regulations and issues and the photos of “liked and disliked” signs that
Commissioners submitted previously. Discussion included:
• The thing that detracts from other community signage is uniformity; what’s nice about
Hopkins is the character and difference of signs.
• Don’t want “planned community” look.
• Downtown district is west side of Sixth Avenue to east side of 13th Avenue.
• City should take more active approach to maintenance of signage and signage that is no
longer relevant being left up.
• Want the new regulations to conform to what the market is driving.
• Update is necessary to address free speech issue and to make regulations more clear to
applicants, i.e., housekeeping issues. Also, some new types of signs, i.e., lighted, electronic,
are being requested and are not addressed or may take away from historic look of
Mainstreet.
• East and west sections of Mainstreet have different regulations—should be reconsidered to
have same regulations from 5th through end at west.
• Should be designed for pedestrians.
• Glen Lake area in Minnetonka is favorable example.
• Encourage more historic-looking signs.
• Shady Oak station shares area with Minnetonka; pedestrian needs should be considered.
• Be sure regulations don’t cause too much expense for starter businesses.
• Painting of window in child care building was discussed regarding whether it was considered
signage.
UNOFFICIAL
Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, July 25, 2017 – Page 3
• Blake Road/Excelsior corner signage was discussed—standards that require individual letters
could be required.
• Is it appropriate to have a tiered approach such as requirements vs. guidelines?
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Lindahl updated the Planning & Zoning Commission on the following items:
1. Pawn, Coin and Currency Exchange Zoning Amendment Discussion
Staff feels that feedback from Commission and Council have reached a point of consistency, and
the concern is how to deal with payday lending and not be too restrictive. Staff will take the
Commission’s comments to the Council and then come back for final feedback, bringing all
three uses together. Considering the Council’s schedule, this will probably be done in
September.
2. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update—Cultivate Hopkins
The Council endorsed formation of an advisory committee, and the first meeting will be this
Thursday. There were more applicants than would be manageable, so staff had to select
members, trying to make the group demographically and geographically diverse and also
considering owners vs. renters and gender. Still looking to fill demographic that has historic
perspective (older generation). Approximately 1/3 of the group is familiar with city processes (2
Council members, 3 P&Z commissioners) and some with Citizens Academy experience or who
have been otherwise engaged. The agenda for the first meeting is: (1) Comp Plan 101; (2) U of
M professor on long-range planning issues; and, (3) consultants with summary of engagement
and demographics profiles of city and how they fit together. The first meeting will “set the
table” for subsequent meetings and try to mix in fun and conversation. Meeting times will be
discussed and possibly adjusted at the first meeting, but are anticipated to be 5 to 8 meetings on
Thursdays over the next 8 months from approximately 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Chairman Hunke expressed the Commission’s gratitude to outgoing Commissioner Gary Newhouse
for serving on the Commission and giving his time, viewpoints and dedication to City. He wished
him good luck in his next endeavor.
ADJOURN
Commissioner McNeil moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The
motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shannon Smith
MEMO
To: Planning Commission Chair and Members
From: Kurt Howard, Planning and Economic Development Intern
Date: August 22, 2017
Subject: Update on SolSmart Program Application
Proposed Action – Review requirements from SolSmart program application and discuss City
staff’s progress in pursuing designation.
Overview
The City’s progress toward achieving SolSmart designation is documented within the attached
summary of SolSmart designation criteria. The City’s goal is to achieve, at minimum, the silver
designation status. Significant progress toward this goal has already been claimed and submitted for
review by SolSmart advisors. The remaining actions required for silver designation appear to be
reasonably manageable.
Chief among the remaining required actions is the requirement to allow solar-by-right as accessory
use in all major zones and implement any zoning ordinance adjustments identified through zoning
review. Staff is actively working towards satisfying this requirement by drafting an alternative energy
ordinance. Although the requirements of the SolSmart program focus specifically on solar energy,
staff’s vision for a more comprehensive alternative energy ordinance would extend beyond solar
energy resources to include wind, geothermal and methane gas collection energy resources as well.
Staff is reviewing existing examples of such ordinances from communities across the state, as well as
receiving technical assistance from SolSmart advisors.
The production of an online checklist detailing the steps of Hopkins’ solar permitting process is
another significant required action. Planning staff is in the process of coordinating with the Building
Inspections department to produce such a checklist. An example of the City of Brooklyn Center’s
online checklist for their solar energy permitting process is attached.
During the meeting, staff will update the Commission on staff’s progress toward achieving SolSmart
designation and take comments and questions from the Commission.
Attachments
• Criteria for Achieving SolSmart Bronze, Silver and Gold Designation Status with Progress
Updates Included.
• Example of City of Brooklyn Center’s Online Checklist for Solar Energy Permitting Process.
SolSmart Designation Criteria
Bronze
• Provide Solar Statement. (Complete)
• Create online checklist for solar permitting process. (In progress)
• Review zoning requirements and remove restrictions. (Complete)
• Earn 20 of 130 possible points in Permitting category. (Claimed 25/130)
• Earn 20 of 95 possible points in Planning, Zoning and Development category. (Claimed
15/95)
• Earn 20 of 620 possible points across six Special Focus Categories. (Claimed 175/620)
Silver
• Achieve bronze designation.
• Allow solar-by-right as accessory use in all major zones and implement any zoning
ordinance adjustments identified through zoning review (In progress).
• Provide cross-training of inspection and permitting staff on solar PV via in-person or
online resources (Claimed).
• Earn 100 of 820 possible points overall from actions taken in any combination of
categories (Claimed 215/820).
Gold
• Achieve silver designation.
• Provide streamlined permitting pathway for small PV systems with no more than 3-day
turn-around.
• Earn 200 points overall from actions taken in any combination of categories (Claimed
215/820).
*Actions marked as “claimed” are actions that have been submitted to SolSmart officials
for review.
Residential Solar Electric System 4-21-14 Page 1
RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM- PERMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
Before approval and issuance of permit(s) for Solar Panel/Photovoltaic systems, a building permit
application must be submitted along with all information requested including the information in this permit
supplemental.
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS. (DETAILS OF SUBMITTALS ARE PROVIDED IN THIS SUPPLEMENT.)
1. Building Permit Application.
2. Electrical Permit Application (may be submitted prior to construction).
3. Site Plan.
4. Construction drawings including elevations. (Provide roof load and hardware uplift calculations.)
5. Manufacturer specifications.
6. Photos showing the condition of the roof.
7. If required, study from licensed Engineer.
8. A drawing showing the layout of the solar panels on the roof. If there are tracks, a separate drawing showing
the layout of the tracks.
I. SITE AND CONTACT INFORMATION
Site Address ___________________________________________ Date of Application__________________
Property Owner Name______________________________________________________________________
Contractor Information
Company Name __________________________________________________________________________
Address_________________________________________________________________________________
City ______________________________________State _________________ Zip Code ________________
Company Phone _____________________________________ License No.___________________________
Contact Person ________________________________________Email ______________________________
II. SOLAR SYSTEM INFORMATION
1. Provide the name brand and model of the solar panels. _____________________________________
2. What is the system’s Kilowatt rating (DC)? _______________________________________________
3. Type of System: Inter-tie______ Stand Alone______
4. Does the system include battery backup or an Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)? Yes No
If yes, provide the number, size and location of the batteries ._________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
5. If roof mounted, identify type of roof. Flat Roof_______ Sloped ________ Roof Pitch _________
6. Describe roofing materials, condition of roof and approximate age (shingles, tile, metal, ballasted,
membrane). ______________________________________________________________________
City of Brooklyn Center Building & Community Standards 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Ph: (763)569-3330 TTY 711 Fax: (763)569-3360
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
Residential Solar Electric System 4-21-14 Page 2
7. Solar panels may not be allowed on existing roofs with two layers of shingles.
Please indicate the number of roofing layers on existing roof. ________
8. Provide calculations that show the hardware used to secure the panels are able to handle the
manufacture uplift values.
9. If staked to the ground, submit staking and grounding information.
III. REQUIRED DRAWINGS AND PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ELECTRIC SYSTEM
Provide construction drawings that include a building section detail and complete notation of method of
fastening equipment to the roof of the subject property, including the following details. Required
drawings must be scaled, dimensioned and legible.
1. Cross section that identifies rafter size, spacing and span dimension and approximate roof slope.
(See example above.)
2. Identify style, diameter, and length of embedment of bolts (i.e. 5/16 inch lags with minimum 3 inch
embedment into framing, blocking or bracing).
Construction drawings included?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Construction drawings included?
Yes No
Example of a framing cross-section illustration.
Residential Solar Electric System 4-21-14 Page 3
3. Provide manufacturer specification materials for
all equipment, fasteners, etc.
4. Provide an elevation of the structure indicating
the appearance of the proposed solar
installation. Note the finished height of the
system above the roof or, if ground - mounted,
above the ground.
a. Elevation drawing included?
Yes No
5. Provide a site plan indicating the buildings and
features of the property. The site plan must
show property line locations, approximate
location of all structures, the location(s) of the
panel installations, setback from property lines,
the main service location, and, if applicable, the
solar easement across adjoining properties.
For roof-mounted systems identify the setback
dimension from the peak and from all edges of
the roof. An on-site inspection may be required.
Property line setbacks must be verified by
the owner or contractor.
a. Site plan included? Yes No
6. Is the equipment to be flush mounted to the roof
mounted such that the collector surface is
parallel to the roof?
Yes No
7. The minimum structural threshold for installing a
flush-mounted PV system is a roof structure with
at least 2 inch x 4 inch rafters no more than 24
inches on-center spacing. Does the roof
structure use 2 inch x 4 inch or larger rafters,
spaced no wider than 24 inches on center?
Yes No
8. For roof installations, roof decking and structural supports should all be in good condition without
visible roof sag/deflection. If the roof has more than one layer of roof coverings or is in poor
condition, it may be required to be replaced prior to installation of solar panels. Is the roof
structure in good condition, having no visible sag, cracking or splintering of rafters, or other potential
structural defect?
Yes No
Residential Solar Electric System 4-21-14 Page 4
a. If roof structure is accessible, please provide a photo showing the condition of the roof. If
roof structure is not accessible, please provide an exterior photo, side view, of the roof.
Picture Provided? Yes No
IV. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
You may be required to provide additional documentation if the equipment is not flush mounted, the
rafter space is more than 24 inches, or the roof is not in good condition.
1. If not a f lush mount system, provide a side elevation identifying the pitch and height of the
collector and mounting system relative to the roof.
2. Certain situations may require a structural engineer such as:
Commercial flat roof project (per Minnesota State Statute 326.02).
Residential flat roof that is raised above the roof system with no support below.
The proposed system is designed above the structure and will endure additional loads
such as wind pressure and snow load.
The structural system is in poor condition or has damaged areas.
The structure is built into grade or a horizontal slope. (Soil loads may apply.)
There may be additional water pressure when located to a pond or pool.
3. If a study or statement is required from a Minnesota licensed/certif ied structural engineer,
approval can come in the following forms:
a. Construction plans denoting the roof structure and any modif ications to the structure, as
well as the method of installation of solar collector on the subject property.
b. Letter from engineer accomplishing the same as above if the engineer feels that letter
format will provide the necessary information.
MEMO
To: Planning Commission Chair and Members
From: Jason Lindahl, AICP
Date: August 22, 2017
Subject: Sign Ordinance Legal Review
Proposed Action – Discuss City Attorney’s review of the sign ordinance.
Overview
As part of the City’s update of the sign regulations, staff asked the City Attorney to review the
ordinance to determine compliance with constitutional law principles and recent case law. The City
Attorney’s legal analysis focused on content neutrality and staff discretion and generally finds the
current sign ordinance in compliance with the law. The City Attorney does offer some
recommendations related to abandoned signs and removal of unlawful signs. During the meeting,
staff will review the City Attorney’s findings and recommendations and take comments from the
Commission.
Attachment
Assistant City Attorney Sign Ordinance Review Memo, August 4, 2017
1
504887v1 DTA HP145-9
Kennedy 470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402-1458
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
sriggs@kennedy-graven.com
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer
&
Graven
C H A R T E R E D
__________________________________________________________________
DAVID T. ANDERSON
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9274
Email: danderson@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 4, 2017
To: Jason Lindahl, Hopkins City Planner
From: David T. Anderson, Assistant City Attorney
Re: City of Hopkins – Sign Ordinance Review Comments
I. Introduction
This memorandum provides comments related to my review of the Hopkins Sign Ordinance,
codified at section 570 of the Hopkins City Code (hereinafter, the “Ordinance”). Per your
request, I have reviewed the Ordinance to determine its compliance with constitutional law
principles and, more specifically, recent court decisions interpreting the First Amendment. My
focus was twofold, first to identify any significant First Amendment issues which may exist, and
second to determine the sufficiency of the City’s enforcement mechanisms contained within the
Ordinance. This memorandum does not opine as to the appropriateness of the Ordinance’s actual
sign regulations from a planning perspective (non-legal issues), as those matters are left to the
discretion of the City’s planning staff and governing body.
II. Review
From a legal perspective, there are generally two distinct areas of specialized concern related to
local sign ordinances. The first is content neutrality, and the second is staff discretion. Each
issue, as it relates to the Ordinance, is addressed separately below.
&
2
504887v1 DTA HP145-9
a) Content Neutrality
The general rule for sign regulations is that if a government agent must read the content on the
sign (i.e. the message) in order to apply a local regulation, the regulation itself is content-based
and likely to raise First Amendment concerns. Therefore, rather than regulating based on content,
cities should regulate signs based on physical attributes, such as size, location, quantity,
illumination, and other physical characteristics that do not require reference to the actual
message contained on signs.
With respect to content neutrality, the Ordinance is extremely content neutral. There are no
readily identifiable content-based regulations that cause significant concern. There is, however,
one rather minor content-based provision contained within the definition of the term “abandoned
sign” at section 570.05, subd. 2. Although it is not egregious, determining whether a sign is
abandoned may require City staff to reference the content to determine if it “pertains to a time,
event or purpose which no longer applies….” Interestingly, other than defining what an
abandoned sign is, the Ordinance does not further regulate abandoned signs in any way, which
was likely unintentional. Therefore, I suggest either removing the definition of abandoned sign
altogether, or, if you intend to prohibit or further regulate abandoned signs, which is probably a
good idea, I suggest slightly tweaking the definition to read as follows:
Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which has been removed or whose
display surface remains blank for a period of one (1) year or more. Signs
applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership
or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless the
property remains vacant for a period of one (1) year or more. Any sign remaining
after demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be abandoned. Signs
which are present because of being legally established nonconforming signs or
signs which have required a conditional use permit or a variance shall also be
subject to the definition of abandoned sign.
Additionally, while the Ordinance does expressly impose regulations based on whether a sign is
“on-premise” or off-premise,” current case law suggests that such regulations do not violate the
First Amendment. While this type of regulation is content-based and, thus, more vulnerable to
legal challenges, distinguishing between on-premise and off-premise signs is something that
courts have generally upheld as a valid content-based sign regulation.
Overall, it appears the Ordinance was carefully drafted to avoid any content-based regulations.
Furthermore, the Ordinance contains a well-written message-substitution clause (section 570.45)
and severability clause (section 570.03), both of which may help avoid issues when dealing with
sign challenges. Other than the recommendation above regarding abandoned signs, I do not
suggest any other modifications in terms of content-neutrality.
b) Staff Discretion
The second area of sign regulation that commonly leads to legal challenges relates to the amount
of discretion afforded to staff members in charge of issuing permits. In other words, how much
3
504887v1 DTA HP145-9
leeway does City staff have to deny a sign permit application? Strictly speaking, if all of the
requirements of the code are met (e.g., the proposed sign meets physical, lighting, placement
specifications, etc.), a sign permit should be granted. After merely applying the Ordinance’s
regulations, staff should have no additional discretion to deny a permit.
In this respect, the Ordinance’s permitting scheme appears generally fine. It does not seem to
afford City staff with unbridled discretion to deny permits, and it further makes clear that the
content of the message or speech displayed on the sign shall not be reviewed or considered in
determining whether to approve or deny a sign permit. It may be useful, although not necessary,
to expressly clarify in the Ordinance that if a proposed sign meets the various requirements, a
permit shall be issued.
c) Enforcement Mechanisms
The Ordinance’s enforcement section appears relatively thin. Section 570.15 provides that a
violation of the Ordinance is a misdemeanor, authorizing the City to enforce the Ordinance by
way of criminal charges. However, there does not appear to be an express mechanism or
procedure in place for the removal of unlawful signs. The City should have a clear way to
remove signs that violate the Ordinance.
There are different ways to implement procedures that might allow sign removal, including
deeming unlawful signs a public nuisance (subject to abatement under section 615 of the City
Code), or merely authorizing City staff, following notice, to remove unlawful signs and hold
them for a period of time for pickup.
Finally, the Ordinance might benefit from a provision that addresses signs that are poorly
maintained, unsightly, or in disrepair, but otherwise meet the City’s requirements. Put
differently, the City should have a way to intervene when a sign that is entirely lawful under the
Ordinance is poorly maintained by its owner or operator. Under these circumstances, the City
should have the ability to require that the owner make necessary repairs or risk losing the sign.
An example of this type of provision is below:
Signs which may be or may hereafter become rotted, unsafe or unsightly shall be
repaired or removed by the owner or lessee of the property upon which the sign
stands upon reasonable notice by the city. The owner, lessee or manager of any
sign that contacts the ground and the owner of the land on which the same is
located shall keep grass, weeds and other growth cut and shall remove all debris
and rubbish from the area beneath the sign. If the owner, lessee or manager of the
property fails to act in accordance with this paragraph, such failure to act shall
constitute a public nuisance, and the city may seek injunctive relief through a
motion for summary enforcement, or obtain an administrative search and seizure
warrant for removal of the sign in question. All costs incurred for removal may
be charged to the owner of the sign and/or property owner and if unpaid, certified
to the county auditor as a lien against the property on which the sign was located.
4
504887v1 DTA HP145-9
By amending the Ordinance to include the types of provisions suggested above, City staff will
have more flexibility when it comes to enforcing its sign regulations.
III. Conclusion
Other than the recommendations contained herein, the Ordinance appears relatively well-written.
If you have any questions regarding this information or if you would like additional information,
please contact me. In the event that the City would like to amend the Ordinance based on any of
these comments, I would be happy to either draft the amendments or otherwise be involved in
any way that might be helpful.
DTA:jms