Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-03 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 2/3/10 ° W0 Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Howard Blin STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on November 23, 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on November 23, 2009. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 1/25/10 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY El SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on November 23, 2009 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS f� City "Administrator Da e REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission November 23, 2009 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on November 23, 2009, in the Council Chambers and tele- cast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Obid Hofland, Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, David Thiede, Chris Willhite Council Liaison: Councilmember Justin Olson Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Rambacher made a motion to approve the agenda. Hofland seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved (9 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Messick explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory ca- pacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. • * "r Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 6 McCool summarized the staff report. He clarified that the tower would be 100 feet in height and the blades 13 feet in length, so the total height of the proposed wind turbine would be 113 feet. He recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Kooyman, 6749 Geneva Avenue South, stated that the only other difference from the proposal in the staff report besides the tower height is that they would like to locate the tower closer to the north property line. The report states that the tower would be 140 feet from that property line and he is now proposing 130 feet, which is still within the ordinance criteria. They plan to start construction of the tower in spring of 2010. Thiede asked if they will be using the wind turbine to generate electricity for their use or to give some back to the power company. Kooyman responded that this tower should generate enough power for their home and an equivalent amount back to the grid. Xcel has a policy where they will purchase the electricity back at retail. Whatever they don't use Xcel will give a credit. Thiede asked if there were any rebates from Xcel. Kooyman responded that they have a 1.5 cent per kilowatt generation incentive. In addition there are some federal tax in- centives. Thiede asked if this is financially feasible. Kooyman stated the payback for them is estimated at about 13 years and the turbine has a 30 -year life span. Rambacher asked if the tower would be built on site. Kooyman explained that the wind tur- bines are manufactured in Canada and would be shipped to their home. The tower would then be erected on a foundation reinforced with rebar. Rambacher asked about maintenance for the blades. Kooyman stated that the blades would periodically wear out as they are fiber- glass. He may apply a 3M adhesive on the blade wings to minimize damage from insects, rain, and hail. The tower they would purchase a hydraulic lift on it for maintenance purposes. Messick opened the public hearing. John Bailey, 1345 Bailey Road, Newport, stated that he is here as a representative of Bailey Nurseries, which owns the property to the north. He stated that his company is strongly op- posed to having this wind turbine installed on the adjoining property. He pointed out the lo- cation of the Bailey property on the map. He stated that currently their property is agricultural but that is not the company plan for that property. It is probably one of the more desirable areas for future housing development due to its location. They feel that this type of structure immediately adjacent to property slated for future development would severely compromise the desirability of that property for future homeowners. He has talked to developers and real estate agents who all confirmed that these types of structures detract from the desirability of the property for housing. Thiede asked if from that property the Newport water tower, the communications tower, and Cottage Grove's water tower are visible. Bailey responded those structures are further from their property than this structure would be. Willhite asked what the current zoning classification is currently. McCool responded that the Bailey property is agriculturally zoned. Willhite asked if anything is designated for that prop- erty. McCool stated that the comprehensive plan shows the future land use for that property to be low density residential. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Poncin asked if there is a timeline when this property could be developed. Bailey stated that they had the property on the market three years ago. Currently they do not have any nursery stock on the property; the only production is just a cover crop. The property is available for development at this point. They don't imagine that happening in the next year but their intent is to be aggressive in moving that property. Willhite asked how many acres the property consists of. Bailey stated one parcel is 20 acres and the other is about 40 acres. Willhite asked how many homes could be developed. McCool responded about three units per acre for urban development. Thiede asked if there were any other comments from neighboring property owners. McCool stated that no other comments have been received. Linse noted that in reading the ordinance he does not see anything that gives the Planning Commission discretion to decide impacts on future residential development. The way he reads it, if the applicant meets the criteria as defined in the ordinance, he does not see any- thing that would allow consideration of aesthetic impacts on the area. Blin stated that under the general criteria for reviewing conditional use permits, the Commission can take into account impacts on surrounding properties. Thiede noted that due to the elevation of the land and trees, the property to the north is fairly open but it appears there are trees to the south. Bailey stated that there are no trees or screening between their properties. Poncin noted that the elevation coming up 70th Street is completely flat and the water tower and the cell phone tower are visible, so this tower would also be visible for at least a mile in every direction including the developed areas. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse asked if future development would affect wind generation for the turbine. Kooyman stated that with the tower height being at 100 feet, they would be okay. Any trees or houses could affect the turbulence that is generated to the blades. Thiede asked about the height of the water tower. McCool stated probably about 110 feet, which is about the same height as the proposed wind turbine. Rambacher asked how this turbine compares to the one in Maple Grove. Blin responded that he does not know but believes the blades are not as long. Messick stated that there are several options for the Commission, including tabling to allow time to look at the regulations to see if we need to discuss anything with the City Attorney. a pplicant Hoffand seconded 1. The .. e all the req Subsection 6. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 4 of 6 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) completed, sub- mitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. Motion passed on an 8 -to -1 vote ( Poncin). Poncin stated that her concern is the impact on the existing neighborhood and the fact that the surrounding area will eventually be developed. This does not seem like the right location. 6.2 Capital Improvement Program 2010 -2014 — Case CP09 -027 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2010 -2014. Blin explained the CIP process and summarized some of the projects in the proposed CIP, including in 2010, the 65th Street (CR /74) reconstruction, Pinecliff 2nd Addition streets and utilities, reconstruction of River Acres Road including medians for a railroad quiet zone, and in 2011, the reconstruction of the roads in Pine Coulee. Thiede asked about the quiet zone for River Acres Road. Blin responded that the Federal Railroad Administration changed the way they scored the crossing after they had initially granted a quiet zone designation in that area. In order for the quiet zone designation to be reinstated, medians need to be constructed, which would cost $30,000 to $40,000 added to the total pavement management costs. Thiede asked if the railroad is responsible for the crossing lights. Blin responded that the railroad owns and maintains the crossing lights. Blin stated one key consideration for the plan is to keep capital expenditures and the result- ing debt levy at a relatively constant level. He summarized that the CIP is the work plan for the next two years and includes all the upcoming projects and funding sources. The action requested of the Planning Commission is to recommend to the Council that the CIP is con- sistent with the comprehensive plan and to effectively amend the comprehensive plan to in- clude the CIP. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse asked about the history of bonding for street construction and rehabilitation of existing roads. Blin responded that it has been done for about 10 years. The City became aware that its streets were deteriorating and did not have a program for reconstructing those roads. The City set up the Infrastructure Management Task Force, which came forward with a set of policies for assessing those costs. About three to four years ago, that group was reconvened to look at those policies, and they made some fairly significant changes. He noted that Thiede served on that task force. Prior to that, assessments were based on a valuation of the home, essentially 2 percent of the value of the home as the premise is that a new street increases the value of a home by 2 percent. The current policy is the city pays 55 percent and property owners 45 percent. Linse asked about new roads. Blin stated that new roads are effectively entirely paid by the developer or the person buying the house. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Messick stated, as a comment for the City Council, that he would like to see that number flipped co that homeowners are paying more of a share. Nobody wants to pay for the road in front of their house but they also don't want to pay for the one across town. The residents who get that new road are receiving the primary benefit of that road. Hofland made a motion to recommend approval. Thiede seconded. Motion passed on an 8 -to -0 vote with one abstention (tine). Linse explained that he abstained because he did not have time to go through the whole CIP and there are too many items in there that he is unfamiliar with. Blin stated that next year a workshop could be scheduled to discuss the capital improvement program. Thiede stated that it is a little more difficult for people who have just gotten onto the Commission. Discussion Items 7.1 Clarification of Electronic Readerboard Signs on Highway 61 McCool summarized the memo to the Planning Commission and asked for clarification from the Commission on whether they intended to allow readerboard signs along Highway 61. Willhite asked if the discussion included the frontage roads along Highway 61. McCool re- sponded that he recalls as part of the ordinance discussion that due to the separation from the highway, businesses along the frontage roads could have electronic readerboard signs. Willhite asked if the current ordinance as written allows electronic readerboards along East and West Point Douglas Road. McCool responded yes and also electronic readerboard signs would be allowed on those properties that abut Highway 61. Rostad stated that with the restrictions for readerboard signs, including size limitations and frequency of message changes, he does not have a problem with allowing those types of signs abutting Highway 61. Rambacher stated that he thought the restrictions were to ensure big, bright signs were not installed on Highway 61. Willhite asked if any businesses fronted directly onto Highway 61. Blin responded south of Innovation Road. He noted that the potential project that trig- gered this discussion was the golf course would like to install a readerboard sign. The cur- rent ordinance as written would allow it, but staff wanted to ensure that was consistent with what the Planning Commission intended. Willhite stated that she believes that the Commis- sion wanted to prohibit dynamic billboards, but not eliminate signs for individual businesses. Rambacher expressed concern about safety due to the size of the sign and the speed limit on Highway 61. Willhite stated that the only reason she voted for the ordinance was because only dynamic billboards were prohibited and she wants the ordinance left as written. It was the Commission's consensus that readerboard signs would be allowed along Highway 61 as currently written in the ordinance. -r- .•'-: •:;• • e� • •: • 'i• is //` r Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 6 of 6 •• 9.1 Recap of November City Council Meetings Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on November 4 and November 18, 2009. He stated that a matter that the Council considered in the last month that will come back to the Planning Commission is the 3M hazardous waste incinerator and whether the city should allow commercial incineration. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Linse asked to revisit the wind turbine ordinance, based on the earlier discussion. Rambacher asked if the Planning Commission or City Council has denied a conditional use permit even though it met all ordinance criteria. After further discussion, it was the consen- sus of the Commission to revisit the wind turbine ordinance. Messick reported that there is no pending business to come before the Planning Commis- sion and asked if the December meeting should be canceled. The Commission concurred. Linse stated that he would like to have the Capital Improvement Program explained in more detail. Adjournment Thiede made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.