Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-04 PACKET 08.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 4/4/12 PREPARED BY Community Development John McCool ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST 1. Consider approving a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 20 kW wind turbine consisting of a 99 -foot monopole with 30 -foot diameter rotor at Werner Electric, 7450 95th Street. 2. Consider approving a variance to the 1,320 -foot minimum setback between a wind turbine structure and conservation easements or public parks to allow the proposed wind turbine to be approximately 230 feet from Hamlet Park's boundary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the conditional use permit and variance for a wind turbine at Werner Electric. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 3/26/12 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ® PARKS AND RECREATION 2/13/12 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from John McCool dated 3/29/12 ® RESOLUTION: Draft ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Neighborhood petition dated 3126/12 Excerpt from unapproved minutes of 3/26/12 Planning Commission meeting Excerpt from 2/13/12 Parks Commission minutes Ben Granley's (Werner Electric) email message dated 3/29/12 ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS v� cJ /: City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: []APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: March 29, 2012 RE: Werner Electric's Proposed Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications Proposal Werner Electric has submitted variance and conditional use permit applications to install a 20 kilowatt wind turbine on top of a 99 -foot tall monopole on their property located at 7450 95th Street. The variance application pertains to the Zoning Ordinance regulation that requires a 1,320 -foot minimum setback between the wind turbine structure and conservation easements or public parks. Werner Electric is proposing a setback of approximately 230 feet from Hamlet Park's boundary. �� Al I ii ilk Werner Elec • Wind � IIJJ .r :s Proposed, rbine I Feet b. ,. 250 300 1,000 Location Map Advisory Commission Recommendations Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed Werner Electric's variance and conditional use permit appli- cations at a public hearing on March 26, 2012. Ben Granley, representing Werner Electric at- tended the meeting and made a short presentation and responded to the Planning Commission's questions about the project. !A l ri 7450 I � Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 2 of 9 A petition opposing Werner Electric's variance and conditional use permit applications was sub- mitted to the Planning Commission. This petition contained 25 signatures representing 21 neigh- boring residential properties. The petition included eight statements objecting to this project. Oral testimony was also received at the public hearing. Many of the comments were similar to the concerns listed in the petition, and others wanted the wind turbine to be located on the east side of Werner Electric's property. A copy of the petition is attached. The Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance regulations relative to setbacks from park land versus residential property, decibel levels at varying wind speeds, and alternative loca- tions to place the wind turbine on Werner Electric's property. The applicant stated that the pro- posed wind turbine location is closest to their building and is the preferred location because it will not interfere with future expansion plans for their customer /employee parking lot, office, ware- house, and loading dock/truck parking areas. Neighboring residents expressed concerns for po- tential flickering effects, adverse visual and noise impacts, and maintaining their residential property values. The illustration below highlights the future site improvements, the proposed location of the wind turbine and the northeast corner location that was discussed at the Planning Commission meet- ing. The distance between the proposed wind turbine and the closest residential dwelling is about 430 feet. Property owners that signed the petition opposing Werner Electric's wind turbine are shown in the yellow cross -hatch pattern. 'Y y M r I Hamlet Park dl97'x 221' Clutdoor Storage approval in 2011 r _G 7 L'Jurncr _ - F. Electric. u - F - ' - - - - -...I r a . Northeast Corner o` ) Kerner Electric's Sig . 80' x 100' Truck Parking approval In 2011 I J �. Future Loading Dock and Truck Parking Expansion 83,500 sq.ft. I Future Addition' ok Petitioners Shown in Yellow Crosshatch Patterns 1< _r% U L 41' a A 7 ` C 1 % 95TH ST S Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 3 of 9 The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council is to grant a variance to the 1,320 foot setback requirement from the Hamlet Park boundary to 230 feet and approve the con- ditional use permit for the 20 kW wind turbine on a 99 -foot tall monopole at the location proposed by Werner Electric. This recommendation passed by a 7 -to -2 vote. An excerpt from the Planning Commission's unapproved minutes is attached. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Werner Electric has provided additional information re- garding the additional cost if the wind turbine was placed in the northeast corner of their site and a comparison of wind patterns between the preferred location and northeast corner of their site. A copy of their findings is attached. Planning Considerations Ordinance Criteria The Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) ordinance allows wind turbines in industrial zoning districts by conditional use permit. This proposed monopole and 20 kilowatt wind turbine is de- fined as a small wind energy conversion system. The maximum height of a WECS in the 1 -2 Dis- trict is 150 feet and the maximum diameter of the rotor and blades is 50 feet. Werner Electric's proposed wind turbine does not exceed either of these ordinance limitations. With the exception of the 1,320 foot minimum setback requirement from public parks, all other components of the wind turbine proposed by Werner Electric comply with other Zoning Ordinance regulations. The ordinance requires a minimum setback of 1.1 times the wind turbine's height from the prop- erty line. No additional setback is required from residential zoning districts or residential uses. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provision of this title, if they find that: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. 5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. 7. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is lo- cated. 8. That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adja- cent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Future Land Use map in the City's approved Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan desig- nates this property for industrial land uses. The General Industry (1 -2) zoning classification and the current use of this property are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Property Characteristics Werner Electric's site is approximately 20 acres in land area. Their office and warehouse facility is a one -story building approximately 116,496 square foot in size. When the City initially reviewed this project in 2007, Werner Electric's site plan showed a 12,076 square foot office addition, an 83,500 square foot warehouse addition, and 117 additional parking spaces. There were 183 parking spaces constructed with the initial construction phase. A copy of their site plan is shown below. I I I I ICI I Ill 11 �I 1 1 1 1 1 �' J 1.1 lLl_LLrL11LL111 111 _ The site is approximately 25 feet lower than the main level of the houses along the east side of Harkness Avenue. The distance between the proposed wind turbine location and the closest dwelling is approximately 450 feet and to Hamlet Park's eastern boundary is approximately 230 feet. The City owns a 50 -foot wide strip of land that abuts the east boundary line of the residential properties along the east side of Harkness Avenue. Along the east side of this 50 -foot strip is an additional 100 feet of land that is part of the Hamlet Park property. An aerial photo of Werner Electric's site is shown below. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 5 of 9 1�. It Proposed Wind "Turbine Location t. Warehwse �T C A 2009 Aerial Photo N n• _ e S 280 500 Wind Turbine Werner Electric is proposing to install a 20 kilowatt wind turbine manufactured by Renewegy. The rotor and blades have a 15 -foot diameter and will be mounted on top of a 99 -foot monopole. A copy of the proposed VP -20 model's data sheet is attached and photographs of this model are shown below. A copy of Werner Electric's letter to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission is attached. This letter highlights the applicant's introductory comments about the wind turbine they proposed to install and their outreach effort to neighboring property owners. As mentioned at the Parks Commission meeting, the proposed wind turbine will supplement their electrical power and will also be used to market/sell as part of their clean energy initiatives. Photographic Illustrations The proposed wind turbine and monopole have been superimposed on two landscape images to provide a visual idea how it might appear on Werner Electric's property. Both images are dis- played below. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 6 of 9 99 foot monopole with a 30 foot diameter rotor. m MVF } �4-�. �� ^ � <y F j F - �Ei Fd�• 11y�Y.t �. �` � Y - C� _ Looking southeast from Hamlet Park Wind Speed Graph Werner Electric had wind velocity measured at the site twice in October, twice in November, and once in December 2011. The average wind velocity for these five days was approximately seven Looking north from 95th Street Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 7 of 9 miles per hour and the average gust velocity was about 11 miles per hour. The wind speed graph is shown below. ;9 40 35 _r_ 30 Q � 25 � 40 N 15 a c M 0 1 t- 10-2011 D3:10:00 2940- 2011OMOO 1341- 201010000 28.11 - 271100;00:00 1.12Ml OMQ*OC Satou Tiilr Wind Velocity mEmmmm iGust Velocity Wind Turbine Sound Level The siting of wind turbines is largely a land use and neighborhood compatibility issue. It is impor- tant to recognize potential problems and address them appropriately so that sound levels which may be created by the wind turbine are not intrusive for neighboring land uses. Werner Electric's proposed 20kW single unit wind turbine is relatively small as compared to light commercial wind turbines that could range from 20 kW to 300 kW. The applicant is proposing to place the wind turbine on the southwest corner of their building because it is closest to the build- ing and will not be in the way of their future expansion plans for the warehouse, employee /cus- tomer parking, and delivery truck /loading dock areas. This location was presented to neighboring residential property owners and to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Based on initial feedback from neighboring property owners and Parks Commission, potential visual or sound impacts were not perceived to be significant. The applicant has included in their application submittal a graph estimating the sound levels of this particular wind turbine model at varying distances. The horizontal distance between the base of the monopole and the eastern Hamlet Park boundary line is approximately 230 feet and to the closest residential dwelling is approximately 450 feet. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 8 of 9 VP -20 Average Sound Levels with Distance 100.0 90.0 80.0 s z Q 70.0 V a 5 V 9 60.0 c_ c H SOR 40.0 30.0 Approximate Sound Levels: 30 d8 - Quite Whisper at 1m 40 d8 - Residential Area at Night 50 68 - Quiet Business office 60 d8 - Normal Conversation at 1m 70 d6 - Automobile at 20m 80 d8 - Heavy Traffic 90 d6 - Semi - Trader at 20m 100 d8 - home lawnmower or Weed - Whacker AlC .7 v ..dar Y.YCK. 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 Distance ftom Turbine (feet) Neighborhood Information Meeting On January 26, 2012, Werner Electric hosted an information meeting at their facility. Surrounding property owners were invited to attend this meeting. Ten residents from 60 invitations attended the meeting. Nine of the ten residents supported Werner Electric's wind turbine proposal. Advisory Commission Comments Werner Electric made a presentation to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission on February 13, 2012. The Commission unanimously supported the proposed setback variance as proposed by Werner Electric. An excerpt from the approved Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission is attached. Public Meeting Notices A public meeting notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin and notices were mailed to 61 property owners who are within 500 feet of this site. These notices were mailed on March 14, 2012. The location map shows the 500 -foot buffer around the site. Recommendation That the City Council accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the following planning applications for Werner Electric's wind turbine project: 1. A variance to the Zoning Ordinance regulation that requires a 1,320 -foot minimum setback between the wind turbine structure and conservation easements or public parks. Werner Electric is proposing a setback of approximately 230 feet from Hamlet Park's boundary. 010 solo 1001e Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Werner Electric's Wind Turbine Project — Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications March 29, 2012 Page 9 of 9 2. The conditional use permit application for the construction of a 20 kW wind turbine consisting of a 99 foot monopole with 30 foot diameter rotor and blades as shown on Werner Electric's site plan dated February 29, 2012 (date stamped as Received by the City of Cottage Grove). The findings of fact and conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission are included in the attached draft resolution. o 1 Z � � �_ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A 20 KILOWATT WIND TURBINE AT WERNER ELECTRIC, 7450 95TH STREET SOUTH, AND A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE 1,320 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM PUBLIC PARK OR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS TO 230 FEET WHEREAS, Werner Electric has applied for aconditional use permit to allow the installation of a 99 -foot tall 20 kilowatt wind turbine with three 15 -foot long blades and a variance to reduce the 1,320 foot minimum setback requirement from public park or conservation easements to 230 feet, onthe property is legally described as: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 27, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of said Section 20; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds East, assumed bearing along the East line of said Northwest Quarter, 1303.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, 820.05 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds West, 591.24 feet; thence South 39 degrees 42 minutes 41 seconds East, 436.89 feet; thence South 24 degrees 00 minutes 42 seconds East, 181.43 feet; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds East, 211.55 feet to the south line of said Northwest Quarter; thence easterly along said south line, 464.81 feet to the point of beginning. Said description contains ±20.54 acres or ±894,871 square feet. Commonly known as 7450 95th Street South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 26, 2012; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the application request, was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, a petition opposing the applicant's wind turbine project contained the signatures of 25 residents representing 21 residential properties was presented to the Planning Commission. Their concerns pertained to potential visual and noise pollution and property values. The petition has been placed on file and is available for public viewing; and Resolution No. 2012 -XXX Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the criteria and findings established by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance. A summary of these criteria is as follows: Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Will the va- riance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? The City may impose conditions and safeguards in granting any variance. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on a 7 -to -2 vote recommended to the City Council that the conditional use permit and variance applications be granted based in the findings of facts and the conditions of approval listed in the planning staff report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 99 -foot tall, 20 kilowatt wind turbine that has three 15 -foot long blades and a variance to reduce the 1,320 foot minimum setback requirement from public park or conservation easements to 230 feet, on the property legally described above.Granting of this conditional use permit and variance is based upon the following findings of fact: A. The Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance (WECS) defines a small wind turbine as having a total rated capacity less than 50 kW. The wind turbine model proposed by Werner Electric is a 20 kW unit and only one unit is proposed on their site. B. Werner Electric invited neighboring property owners to attend an information meeting and attending property owners generally supported the applicant's wind turbine proposal. C. The monopole height is 99 feet with a rotor diameter of 30 feet. D. The City's Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed Werner Electric's variance application and supported the placement of the wind turbine to be not less than 230 feet from the Hamlet Park boundary. E. The proposed location is closest to their main building without impacting their future plans to expand their facility, parking areas and docking area. F. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned General Industry and the proposed monopole structure and wind turbine size complies with installation, design and siting regulations required in the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance setback from the Hamlet Park boundary line will not adversely impact the use of this park amenity. G. The variance request is not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but its industrial characteristics are consistent the industrial land use designation for this property. H. The proposal continues a reasonable use on the property. Resolution No. 2012 -XXX Page 3 of 3 I. The unique circumstances to the property were not created by the landowner. The parcel of land is not large enough to comply with 1,320 foot setback requirement for the proposed wind turbine. J. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. The proposed wind turbine is an alternative sustainable energy resource that will reduce their electrical power usage from a private utility company. K. The granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood. The proposed wind turbine will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. It will not create congestion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the approval of this conditional use permit and variance is subject to the following conditions: All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, and mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, 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 and Fire Marshal. 2. Except for the minimum setback variance for the wind turbine, Werner Electric must comply with all other City ordinances and policies. 3. Werner Electric must abide by Title 11 -6 -17, Noise Control regulations of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4. Lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illumination attached to the wind turbine or monopole is prohibited unless those devices are required by the Federal Aviation Administration. Passed this 4th day of April 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk From: Granley, Ben <BGranley @WernerElec.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:14 PM To: John McCool Subject: RE: Wind Turbine - Cost Comparison John, When considering the move of the turbine to the Northeast corner there are 2 main factors that are present; cost and wind turbulence. Our estimate for additional cost to locate the turbine to the northeast corner is $10,000 - $15000. This represents a 12- 15% increase in the project's cost. This cost adder is for: • Additional materials to run the electrical connection to this location. This is very expensive do to the fact that the connection needs to occur at our service entrance. The service enters the building next to our city desk location on the other side of the facility. • Additional fill dirt and /or logistical support to get concrete trucks back to this location. We would either need to pump the concrete or put in a temporary drive to get the concrete to this location. • Lift rentals for running the power in the ceiling of our warehouse to create the shortest distance possible. • Concrete safety bollards for protection of the unit. There normally isn't traffic back this far on our lot but there is equipment traffic in the winter as we manage our snow piles throughout the winter season. Between the 2 factors, the wind turbulence worries me more than the cost. There are some general guidelines when it comes to placement of wind turbines and the effect of homes, trees, and buildings on low level wind stream patterns. I will speak to 2 scenarios to describe this. The first being if the turbine was placed on the southwest side of our building, and the second if the turbine was placed on the northeast side of our building. In general for both scenarios, as your move higher in elevation there is a natural increase in wind speed (Fig 4), and there is a natural "floor" that happens when an object obstructs the wind flow that has to be compensated for (Fig 2). 1. Southwest a. As wind blows over the neighborhood on Harkness Avenue, it drops off on the backside of the homes and down the hill towards Werner. This flow creates a turbulence bubble on the backside of the homes with a depth equal to 20x the height of the homes. We are estimating this bubble to be close to 400 -450 feet. The largest intensity of this bubble occurs closest to the hill and dies off as it gets closer to Werner. (See Fig 1) The estimated distance of the wind turbine to the homes is 430 feet which puts the placement of the wind turbine in a relatively good location with all factors considered. The size of the bubble and the turbine placement in relation to the bubble has an extreme effect of the turbines ability to produce power. This also has a large effect on the wear of the unit, mainly as you get more and more wind shear and ground resistance the wind pattern is distorted and that puts unwanted wear on the bearings, generator, and other parts within the turbine. With the southwest location these concerns are minimal as the turbine is outside of the turbulence bubble. 2. Northeast a. As the wind blows from Harkness Avenue, down the hill, and over the Werner Electric facility, a second turbulence bubble is created. This bubble is taller and longer due to the fact that our facility is much taller than the homes and our buildings width at the face of the wind is wide. We estimate this bubble to be at least 80 feet tall and have a length of close to 800 feet. This puts the end of the bubble at Hemmingway Avenue. With the limitations of the lot and setback lines on the Northeast corner, the turbine would be located approximately 125 feet from the back of the Werner warehouse. This placement puts the turbine in the zone for the highest turbulence (Fig 1, Fig 3). This is very concerning because not only would the output of the unit be dramatically lower, but the anemometer on the turbine would get false readings and it would have a difficult time determining the actual direction of the wind to adjust its rotation and blade pitch to maximize power. After this additional analysis and because this unit's purpose is to generate power the only logical location is the Southwest corner; closer to the residential area. Not only is this the best location for the wind, but it is also the best location to wire the turbine into our utility entrance which is less than 100 ft away. If we were only putting up the unit to showcase it (as purported by some of the local residents during the planning commission), the location would be irrelevant but this is simply not the case The residents have also shown concern for the impact of the wind turbine on property values. Here is a link ( http: / /sdge.com/ sites / default / files /newsroom /pdf /Ibnl- 2829e.pdf to a study on this subject, funded by the US Government, and conducted by the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In summary, the report finds that: "The concern that property values will be adversely affected by wind energy facilities is commonly put forth by stakeholders. Although this concern is not unreasonable, given property value impacts that have been found near high voltage transmission lines and other electric generation facilities, the impacts of wind energy facilities on residential property values had not previously been investigated thoroughly. The present research collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single family homes situated within 10 miles of 24 existing wind facilities in nine different U.S. states. The conclusions of the study are drawn from eight different hedonic pricing models, as well as both repeat sales and sales volume models. The various analyses are strongly consistent in that none of the models uncovers conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts that might be present in communities surrounding wind energy facilities. Specifically, neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices. Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and /or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact." Could you please make sure all of this information is appended to the report to the council? Thank you for your time. All reference figures are from "A practical guide to small scale energy production, Power from the Wind." Authored by Dan Chiras Fig 1 Site Quality Terrain Turbulence Intensity Factor Good Well Exposed 15% Some Ground Ctutter, Average Scattered Trees, Buildings 20% Many Trees or Buildings, or Poor Site at Lower Elevation than 25% Cm irrni,ndinsc 3 f 2H Fig 3 EMS= Arrow length indicates rind speed m ground clutter to recover Fig 4 4 Wind profile Wind profile over open altered by --4- field trees Wind speed increases rapidly with height ffective 117 r grotind surface Little or no wind Fig 3 EMS= Arrow length indicates rind speed m ground clutter to recover Fig 4 4 BEN GRANLEY P: 651 769 8093 • F: 651 - 768 -5205 • M. 612 - 363 -8167 BGranlev @WernerElec.com WERNER ELECTRIC - Solution • Supply • Support 7450 95th Street South, Cottage Grove, MN 55016 www.wernermn.com • Facebook • Twitter • YouTube Monday, March, 26, 2012 RECEIVE MAR 2 6 2012 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE To: City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission and City Council Subject: Werner Electric The undersigned residents of the City of Cottage Grove oppose the application of Werner Electric for a wind turbine conditional use permit and a set- back variance (case CUP 12 -011 and V12 -012). Our main reasons for our strong opposition to this application include the fact that the proposed wind turbine project will result in: 1. Substantial visual pollution and nuisance impacting our near -by residential properties. 2. Noise pollution and nuisance due to the close proximity of many near -by residential properties. 3. Significant property value reductions of near -by residences due to items one and two listed above. 4. Substantial difficulty in selling our properties since most of our residences on Harkness Avenue have patios, decks, eating areas, and bedrooms facing the proposed wind turbine. 5. Increased negative impact on near -by residences due to residential elevations relative to proposed wind turbine. 6. Significant adverse impact on use and enjoyment of near -by residences and decrease in property values, in large part, to permit applicant to sent wind turbines. 7. Total negation of ordinance set -back specifications resulting in negative impact on use and enjoyment of public park. 8. Non - harmonious use when compared to existing low profile and attractive light industrial building. Signature House Address 9yyD )-zc4 Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) R MAR 2 6 2012 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) + M �A Ao- " b-t�. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) 'A� 3 0 �j &�s A v(- � Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) C U E V MAR 2 6 2012 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Wu� 1)4 (S i g nature Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Cottao� rove, M 016 (Address) 2 Ax/ AUf (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) E E' RE �, MA k 2 6 LU I) clw 0 2� CITY OF CO TTAG E GROVE and Wa, f- � s // , .Sd Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) re) `Y 610 Ik Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Gt Km ' JS R, r Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) m y MAN 262 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE (Signature Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) A. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) 7 N� C ��kr tl S (Signature) q L�/,) PtAt S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) y MAN 262 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2012 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE (Signature) �W U I.� u � ��!�es -s �-c-- S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address� 0 �) I (Signature) -2 ALrj- Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) ature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) M R E CAE MAR 2 6 2012 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE E Em Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) (Signature) Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (Address) E C E P 1Y E Tj MAR 2 6 2012 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE ` • • • 6.2 Werner Electric Wind Turbine — CUP12 -011 and V12 -012 Werner Electric, 7450 95th Street South, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 20 kilowatt wind turbine and a variance to the required setback from public park or conservation easements. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rambacher asked if the sound levels and distance information was provided by the manufacturer or by a third party. Ben Granley, Werner Electric, 7450 95th Street, responded they received the information from the manufacturer. Brittain asked what the basis is for the 1,320 -foot setback from public park and conservation easements. McCool explained that when the wind turbine ordinance was adopted in 2009, there was discussion on if wind turbines would have adverse sound impacts to park and open space. Based on the information provided to the City, we implemented the quarter mile setback from parks. Brittain asked if the City is considering changing that in the future. McCool responded no, noting that larger wind turbines could have more of impact on sound, and staff would prefer to review that on a case -by -case basis. Brittain asked if there is any information on the noise modulation that would be generated and about the variation in decibels that are perceivable by the adjacent homes. Granley responded that he does not have specific information on the variation of sound. He displayed a graph showing the decibel levels. He believes that the variation would come when the turbine starts and stops moving. Brittain stated that with a wind turbine there is a cyclical frequency as the blades rotate. He explained that a five decibel difference in sound levels is very noticeable, which is why he is curious about what type of variation could be expected. Granley responded that 40 decibels is the loudest the unit would get, so if there is a variation, it would be quieter. He believes the sound would be negligible at the homes that are 400 feet away. Brittain asked what the setback is from residential properties. McCool responded 1.1 times the height of the wind turbine. Brittain asked if the FCC is requiring lights on top of the turbine. Granley stated that they are far enough from the nearest airport that the FAA would not require lights. He noted that one of the conditions of approval is that lights would not be allowed unless required by the FAA. Reese asked what the average height is for cell towers. McCool responded about 100 feet. Reese then asked how loud this would be compared to truck traffic coming into the site. Granley responded much quieter; typically semi -truck traffic at 20 meters is between 70 and 90 decibels. Reese asked with their future warehouse expansion, if the truck traffic would be more noticeable to residents than the turbine. Granley stated that as part of their neighborhood meeting regarding the approval and permitting of this project, the one resident in opposition voiced concerns about truck traffic noise. As part of their expansion, if they receive approval, they will add a second driveway to divert truck traffic away from the residences. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Werner Electric Wind Turbine — Case Nos. CUP12 -011 & V12 -012 March 26, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Jason Weis, 9421 Harkness Avenue South, stated that he has a few concerns about this project. He is not worried that it will be too loud but about the variation of sound due to the oscillation. He is also concerned about oscillating shadows from the blades and the light pollution from the auto marshaling rail yard. He asked why the proposed location was chosen when the Werner Electric property is large. He would prefer to have the turbine on the other side of the property as far away from the residences as possible. He expressed regret that he did not attend the neighborhood meeting held by Werner Electric. John Magee, 9429 Harkness Avenue, passed out a petition signed by community residents. He stated everyone who signed the petition is grateful for the partnership of Werner Electric in our community and are passionate about conservation and the introduction of alternative energies. In principle, they agree with the desire by Werner Electric to have a wind turbine, but they oppose this project. He read from the petition their reasons for the opposition, including substantial visual pollution; noise pollution due to its close proximity to residential properties; significant property value reduction of nearby residences; difficulty in selling the properties; increased negative impact due to residential elevations that are about 25 feet above Werner Electric's site, which would put the blades closer to the homes; a significant adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of their properties; negative impact on the use and enjoyment of public parks; and non - harmonious use when compared to existing low profile, attractive light industrial buildings. Granley displayed a map that shows areas on the property that would not work for the location of the wind turbine, explaining that the reasons those locations would not work include drainage and utility easements, future building and parking lot expansion areas, the fall zone (1.1 times the height of the unit from the property line), and a storm water system. There are only two areas on their property that the turbine could be located, the proposed location and an area by 95th Street. Based on those two options, they decided the best was closer to their office. They would be open to having the unit placed on a parking lot island or to any area that would work with their parking requirements. The proposed location does not affect green space or their parking capacity. Jerry Lee, 9445 Harkness Avenue, asked if any studies have been done that shows a positive impact of a wind turbine on residential properties instead of negative. McCool responded the City has not done any study about positive impacts to residential properties. Granley stated that when they are not using the power generated by the wind turbine, the closest neighboring properties, including the residential area and the park would be powered by this unit. The power gets sold to the utility and used within the closest proximity. Commission member Wehrle asked if Werner received cost estimates for alternate locations for the wind turbine to the south or east. Granley responded not yet; the costs would consist of additional wire and conduit, digging expenses, drudging under the driveway, and drainage issues. They are open to relocating it, but prefer the proposed location. Rostad asked if they have looked into the northern portion of new parking lot expansion. Granley stated that they have already expanded some of the parking, and would need to field verify ensure they have Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Werner Electric Wind Turbine — Case Nos. CUP12 -011 & V12 -012 March 26, 2012 Page 3 of 7 enough space for the additional parking they need for truck traffic and future egress as they expand the office space to the side. He noted that the grade changes at the back of their property, going down the side of a hill into a storm water drainage area. Reese asked about the width of the monopole. Granley responded it is two to three feet in diameter and needs a 16 -foot concrete base underground. Reese asked if the utilities are underground. Granley replied yes. Reese asked if there would be any issues with the parking lot over the utilities. Granley responded no. Reese then asked if the tower could be closer to the property in that area. McCool responded that they would have to request a variance from 1.1 setback distance, explaining that the wind turbine is 114 feet and the minimum setback requirement would be 127 feet. Reese inquired what abuts their property on that side. McCool responded there is a drainage ditch along the east property line. He explained that is vacant property owned by Canadian Pacific. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Pearson asked if the noise changes with the wind speed. Granley stated that 40 decibels is the loudest it would get. The unit is rated at 55 miles an hour maximum speed. When the wind is 55 miles an hour, the blades are moving their fastest and the hum from the generator is the loudest. When the wind speeds are less, the unit is quieter. He was next to a unit that was running at its fastest speed and the noise levels represented on the graph are similar to what he observed. When it was running just off the wind, it was much quieter than what the graph represented. The average wind speed measured on their roof line at 35 feet was between 7 and 15 miles per hour; at 99 feet it is closer to 9 to 12 miles per hour average with gusts closer to 18 miles per hour. Pearson asked where Granley heard the turbine run. Granley stated at the manufacturing facility in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Rambacher asked what the wind gust is needed generate 55 miles an hour. Granley responded 55 miles an hour of wind. The highest wind gusts observed during the wind study at their roof height was 35 miles per hour. It was asked what the RPMs are in a 55 mile an hour wind. Granley stated that he could find out. He noted that the sound concerns most people have are from the larger units, which can go in excess of 100 miles an hour. The noise that will be heard will not come from unit they are proposing to install; it is the hum from the generator, which is about 40 decibels. Ventura asked about the setback requirements for the pole. Granley answered 127 feet, which is 1.1 times the height. Rostad re- opened the public hearing. George Hebaus, 9448 Harkness Avenue, asked if there have there been any studies on if that hum gets transmitted into the ground as a vibration or is it isolated or dampened. Granley answered that units consist of a pole and a base that get bolted together on installation. The unit on the top has special bearing to help it pivot, which reduces the vibration. The hum that is heard is not a vibration; it is the hum of electricity. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Werner Electric Wind Turbine —Case Nos. CUP 12-011 &V12-012 March 26, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Brittain asked how the manufacturer turned on the wind turbine for the demonstration. Granley stated that there is a special unit for demonstration purposes powered by electricity. Brittain stated that he would expect that the sound would be different from an electrically - driven unit versus one being driven by the wind. He is concerned about the noise being cyclically driven by the wind. Granley stated that if the wind was blowing 55 miles an hour, the wind would be heard, not the blades. John Magee asked if a setback variance would be required regardless of where the wind turbine is placed on the property because the property is not large enough to accommodate the setbacks. McCool stated that was correct. Magee asked if there is any research on how this type of wind turbine has affected property values in other areas. Granley responded that they checked with the manufacturer, as that was asked at the neighborhood meeting, and they did not have anything on that. Magee stated that he has done some research into wind turbines and because it is new technology, there is a perception about their impacts. Perception could affect the property value and sales of properties near a wind tower. Magee asked if Werner Electric is going to sell wind turbines. Granley responded yes. Magee stated that it is not just for generating electricity; it is essentially a billboard. He stated that customers would come to the site to see the wind turbine and maybe purchase one, so essentially it is an advertisement. Granley stated that is not its primary purpose. He stated that as company they are about clean and green energy, and they are not installing every unit they sell. Magee commented that a setback variance is needed so they can make a profit. Granley stated that they do not view this wind turbine as advertising but as an offset to their building's electricity. Wehrle asked if the petition is a valid means of expressing concerns. McCool responded yes, citizens can submit petitions to the City addressing their concerns. Rambacher asked if the people who spoke signed the petition. The response was yes. Brittain asked what the requirements would be in a residential neighborhood. McCool responded that roof - mounted wind turbines would be allowed. Brittain asked what size. McCool responded a small turbine, which is defined as between 20 and 50 kilowatts with a maximum height above the structure of 15 feet, which includes the blade height. Brittain stated that he has researched this topic. He appreciates what an asset Werner Electric has been to the community. However, some of the published reports documented by acoustical experts lean towards recommending 30 to 35 decibels to mitigate the cyclical noise of the turbines. People can get accustomed to a 40 decibel hum from a motor but not to the variation of wind speeds of a turbine. He is most concerned about changes in sound. Even slight changes on the decibel scale can be significant on the sound scale. Because the decibel level is in the 40 to 45 range variations in the amount of sound, he is troubled with reducing a 1,320 -foot setback to 450. He has significant concerns with the residential area being that close. This wind turbine would operate all the time and could become a nuisance to the neighborhood. He does not think it is justified to approve a significant reduction in the setbacks for the proposed location with the limited knowledge on the impacts of wind turbines. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Werner Electric Wind Turbine — Case Nos. CUP12 -011 & V12 -012 March 26, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Reese asked if the 1,320 foot minimum setback requirement for a wind turbine from park boundaries was also residential boundaries. McCool stated that the setback requirement from the residential property lines is the 1.1 times the height. The variance is only for the setback from the Hamlet Park boundary, which is the 1,320 setback. Brittain noted that there is a larger setback distance from a park that remains empty most of the time than from residential areas. Granley stated that staff had asked them to abide by the City's noise control ordinance, which from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., in excess of two hours, is 50 decibels, so they would be under noise ordinance requirements that would be considered a nuisance. Pearson asked if the turbine could only be operated during their business hours. Granley stated that mechanically they cannot lock the unit. Pearson stated that he has seen units that have been shut down. Granley stated that most units have an overspeed condition, so if it going too fast, it will slow down or stop. This unit tips down for maintenance, so when the tip - down procedure is done, there is a way to lock it. Ventura asked if Werner would be in compliance with the residential setback based on the 1.1 calculation. McCool responded yes, explaining that the variance is for the park setback. Rambacher commented that the northeast corner seems the most logical location for the wind turbine. He asked how many employees Werner has and if most live in the Cottage Grove area. Granley stated about they have about 115 employees and over half the jobs they have added since they moved to the City have been residents of Cottage Grove. Rambacher stated his reason for those questions is because expansion in the industrial park would be good for this community, and selling more turbines, whether it would be helping Werner save money to bring on more employees, is a warranted cause. He thinks that the northeast corner makes the most sense to him, and while there would still be park setback issues, the turbine would be further from the residential properties. Reese agreed and asked if the northeast corner was where the property falls off into a drainage area. Granley responded that the first 15 feet of the property is at a steep grade into the drainage area. Reese asked what needs to be done to make it work near the drainage area. McCool stated that the City would not want it in the drainage area; the footing for the monopole would have to be outside the drainage area. Rambacher stated that it should be 1.1 times the height from the property line. He asked if it would be possible to put it up in the area where they may expand the parking area in the northeast corner, meeting the 1.1 setback, and lay asphalt over the footing of the tower. McCool stated that would not affect drainage. Granley stated that area is used for additional trailer and truck equipment storage, but safety bollards could be installed around the tower. Rediske asked about the Werner's time frame for installation. Granley responded that if they receive approval from the City, they would start excavating when the frost is out of the ground and hope to have the unit commissioned this summer. It will be a 60 to 90 day process. Rediske asked if that would still be the timeframe if the Commission recommends the northeast portion of the site for the tower. Granley stated yes. Rediske noted that if the Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Werner Electric Wind Turbine — Case Nos. CUP12 -011 & V12 -012 March 26, 2012 Page 6 of 7 tower was on the northeast corner, it would help mitigate any problems with flickering from off -site lighting into neighboring homes. Reese asked if the northeast corner would work for Werner Electric or would there be problems due to the truck traffic in that area. Granley responded that they could make that location work; they would prefer the proposed location where they have no future plans. Jason Weis asked about birds, noting that the site is two miles from Grey Cloud Island. He has seen bald eagles in the area. Granley summarized a study that was done through the Woodland Dunes Nature Center and Preserve, which is a bird migratory path next to a business that put this exact unit in. Birds flying into the windows on the building were killed at a rate four to five times higher than birds killed by the wind turbine. John Kooyman, 6749 Geneva Avenue, commented that 44 of these units have already been installed. There is a video that shows three units from that manufacturing site running. He noted that if the turbine is running at normal speed, it is not at 40 decibels; it is comparable to traffic driving by. Rostad closed the public hearing. Messick made a motion approve the conditional use permit to allow a 20 kW wind turbine on top of a 99 foot monopole on Werner Electric's property as shown on their site plan and grant a variance from the 1,320 foot setback requirement from public park or conservation easements to 230 feet, based on the findings of facts and subject to the conditions listed below. Reese seconded. Findings of Fact A. The Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance (WECS) defines a small wind turbine as having a total rated capacity less than 50 kW. The wind turbine model proposed by Werner Electric is a 20 kW unit and only one unit is proposed on their site. B. Werner Electric invited neighboring property owners to attend an information meeting and attending property owners generally supported the applicant's wind turbine proposal. C. The monopole height is 99 feet with a rotor diameter of 30 feet. D. The City's Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed Werner Electric's variance application and supported the placement of the wind turbine to be not less than 230 feet from the Hamlet Park boundary. E. The proposed location is closest to their main building without impacting their future plans to expand their facility, parking areas and docking area. F. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned General Industry and the proposed monopole structure and Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Werner Electric Wind Turbine — Case Nos. CUP12 -011 & V12 -012 March 26, 2012 Page 7 of 7 wind turbine size complies with installation, design and siting regulations required in the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance setback from the Hamlet Park boundary line will not adversely impact the use of this park amenity. G. The variance request is not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but its industrial characteristics are consistent the industrial land use designation for this property. H. The proposal continues a reasonable use on the property. I. The unique circumstances to the property were not created by the landowner. The parcel of land is not large enough to comply with 1,320 foot setback requirement for the proposed wind turbine. J. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. The proposed wind turbine is an alternative sustainable energy resource that will reduce their electrical power usage from a private utility company. K. The granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood. The proposed wind turbine will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. It will not create congestion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. Conditions of Approval 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, and mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, 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 and Fire Marshal. 2. Except for the minimum setback variance for the wind turbine, Werner Electric must comply with all other City ordinances and policies. 3. Werner Electric must abide by Title 11 -6 -17, Noise Control regulations of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4. Lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illumination attached to the wind turbine or monopole is prohibited unless those devices are required by the Federal Aviation Administration. Motion passed on a 7 -to -2 vote (Brittain and Wehrle). Brittain stated that he explained his opposition to the application during the meeting. Wehrle explained that if the recommendation had been to move the wind turbine to the northeast corner, he probably would vote in favor. Excerpt • the Parks, Recreation and Ilatural Resources Commissil Meeting on -• 1 B. Werner Electric Wind Turbine Proposal Dockter introduced Werner Electrics proposal for a 100 foot monopole with a 20 kilowatt wind turbine mount. The location of the proposed wind turbine is on 95 street and adjacent to Hamlet Park. The proposal was presented to a Technical Review Committee. City staff that attended discussed the proposal in regards to how it fits within the zoning requirements which include: • A conditional use permit. • Height limitations of 150'. • A minimum setback from Werner Electric property boundaries of 1.1 times the WECS's height, and conservation easements of 1,320. Dockter stated because Hamlet Park property abuts the north and west boundaries of Werner Electric the 1,320 foot setback requirement from public parks does not permit the placement of a free - standing WECS on Werner Electric's proposed location. Dockter presented an aerial photo of Werner Electric and a letter from Ben Granley, Director of Operations at Werner Electric. Dockter explained that Werner Electric is requesting a variance to the proposal allowing for the wind turbine proposal to proceed. Granley, Director of Operations of Werner Electric, presented a wind energy project packet to the Commission. Granley stated it was his understanding the setback requirements originated with the Parks Commission and requested some understanding of why the setback was put into place. Granley explained some of the precautions Werner Electric took into consideration as they designed this project which included: • A pole design versus a lattice design to prevent children from climbing the structure. • The placement of the turbine in relation to the walking path and drainage ditch. • The esthetics and what the turbine will look like from the park and neighborhoods. • The noise and the effect on residents. • Wind studies that show there is wind generation capable of powering Warner Electric. • The Environment in relation to how the turbine will affect birds. • The installation allowing the unit to electronically rise and fall which will allow for easier maintenance versus climbing the unit. Granley added the unit is being proposed to offset electricity costs at Werner Electric and is a unit that Werner Electric sells as part of its clean energy initiative. Granley asked for a recommendation from the Parks Commission to receive a variance allowing the wind turbine to proceed on schedule. Granley stated as a part of the process Werner Electric has proactively reached out to the community to talk to the residents close to the facility to see if they have any concerns regarding the project. Werner Electric held a meeting and invited the surrounding residents of which 10 residents attended. At the end of the meeting the residents were asked to take a short survey. The results of that survey showed 8 out of the 9 residents that participated in the survey had a positive view of Werner Electric and the project. One resident was opposed to the project with the reason being his objection to any additional noise or truck traffic. Granley directed the Commission back to his earlier graph showing noise levels to remain minimal. Kath asked what the date of the neighborhood meeting was. Granley responded that it was January 26 2012. Granley added he left contact information on the meeting invitation and he has not had any correspondence from residents that did not attend the meeting. A motion was made to accept the variance submitted by Werner Electric. The motion carried. Burbank clarified this motion would be approving the proposal to go on to the Planning Commission assuming Werner Electric submitted application by February 29, 2012. Next, the proposal would be submitted to the City Council at the second meeting in April. This would allow residents additional opportunities to comment. The Parks Commission would be in support of the application.