Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-02 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 5/2/12 PREPARED BY Community Development John McCool ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on March 26, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on March 26, 2012. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 4/23/12 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY Q El El ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ -- ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on March 26, 2012 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS L l City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission March 26, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, March 26, 2012, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: None Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner Robin Roland, Director of Finance and Community Development David Thiede, City Council Open Forum Rostad asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Messick made a motion to approve the agenda. Pearson seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Newpower Porch Addition — Case V12 -010 Jamie and Lisa Newpower have applied for a variance to rear yard setback requirements to allow a porch addition to be 27 feet from the rear property line when 35 feet is the required setback at 9842 77th Street South. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 2 of 11 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Reese made a motion to approve the rear yard setback variance to allow a porch addi- tion at 9842 77th Street South, based on the findings of fact and subject to the condi- tions listed below. Rambacher seconded the motion. Findinqs of Fact. A. The existing house was constructed at the 30 -foot minimum front yard setback. B. The proposed addition will replace the existing deck that is already 27 feet from the rear property line. C. The proposed addition will still comply with the 7.5 -foot minimum side yard set- back requirement. D. Independent School District 833 owns the land north of the applicant's property and is the site of Cottage Grove Middle School. The School's use of this area adjoining the applicant's property is open space and recreation fields. E. The proposed addition will not adversely impact the view of adjoining neighbors of any parks, open space, or recreation fields. F. The proposal is consistent with the property's reasonable use, will enhance the property's value, and is similar to the essential character of the existing house. G. The exterior building materials, design, and color scheme for the proposed at- tached garage addition will match the existing principal structure. N. The proposed attached addition is in harmony with the existing principal structure and other residential structures in this neighborhood. 1. The variance request is not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but its residential characteristics are consistent with the low density residential land use designation for this property. J. The proposal continues a reasonable use on the property. K. The unique circumstances to the property were not created by the landowner. L. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. M. Granting the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other landowners in the neighborhood. The proposed addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. It will not create congestion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 3 of 11 Conditions of Approval: 1. The exterior siding materials and color scheme for the 16 -foot by 24 -foot addition must match the principal structure. 2. The property owner must complete a building permit application and submit de- tailed construction plans for the proposed addition. A building permit must be issued by the City before construction starts. 3. No part of the structure or stairway should encroach on or over any drainage or utility easement. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). 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 manu- facturer 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 deci- bels 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 le- vels. 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 set- back is from residential properties. McCool responded 1.1 times the height of the wind tur- bine. 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. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 4 of 11 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 neighbor- hood meeting regarding the approval and permitting of this project, the one resident in oppo- sition 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. Rostad opened the public hearing. 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, in- cluding 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 loca- tion 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 posi- tive 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. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 5 of 11 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 ex- panded some of the parking and would need to field verify to ensure they have 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 park- ing 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 be- tween 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 re- sponded 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 gene- rator, 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 installa- Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 6 of 11 tion. 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. 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 cyc- lically 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 re- sponded 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 Elec- tric 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. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 7 of 11 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 resi- dential 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 over speed 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 tower was on the northeast corner, it would help mitigate any problems with flickering from off -site lighting into neighboring homes. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Reese asked if the northeast corner would work for Werner Electric or would there be prob- lems due to the truck traffic in that area. Granley responded that they could make that loca- tion 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 busi- ness 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 tur- bine 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 sub- ject to the conditions listed below. Reese seconded. Findinqs of Fact A. The Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance (INECS) defines a small wind tur- bine 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. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 9 of 11 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. L 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 in- jurious 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 con- struction 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. Discussion Items None Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from February 27, 2012 Ventura made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on February 27, 2012. Rambacher seconded. The motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of March City Council Meetings Thiede reported that the City Council approved the appointment of Rostad as Chair of the Planning Commission, the conditional use permit and variance for expansion of American Motorsports Bar & Grill, and the conditional use permit for the 3M carbon filtration facility. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries McCool stated that included in the Planning Commission packet was information regarding an open house that Washington County is conducting at the Washington County South Ser- vice Center, 13000 Ravine Parkway, on the future improvements to the County Road 19 (Keats Avenue) and County Road 22 (70th Street) intersection. Brittain asked if the current intersection of Military Road /70th Street /Keats Avenue would be closed. McCool responded that there could be a median to prevent cross traffic with a right turn lane from northbound Keats Avenue onto eastbound 70th Street. Reese asked if the County is following the East Ravine plan. McCool responded yes. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None 9.4 Organizational Meeting and Election of Officers Rostad asked if there were any nominations for Vice Chair. Reese nominated Brittain as Vice Chair. Brittain accepted the nomination. Messick seconded. Motion passed unanim- ously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there were any nominations for Secretary. Brittain nominated Rambacher as Secretary. Rambacher declined the nomination. Rambacher nominated Pearson as Secre- tary. Pearson accepted the nomination. Motion passed unanimously. McCool explained that the Planning Commission needs to adopt the Planning Commission Rules, and if the Commission has no changes to the rules, they can be adopted this evening. If there are any recommended changes, they would need to be approved at two consecutive meetings. Rostad asked if there were any comments or changes to the rules. There were none. Brittain made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Rules as written. Rambacher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 11 of 11 Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ventura seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.