Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-07 PACKET 08.C. EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.2 Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment – Case TA2015-025 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Special Zoning Provisions, to add Section 10, Solar Collector Systems, to reg- ulate solar energy systems in all zoning districts. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. Graf noted at the workshop on the draft ordinance, a couple of the industry professionals men- tioned an escalation clause along with bonding, and asked if it that was determined not to be an option. McCool responded that staff did not provide that. At some point there may be an agreement with the utility company and that could be addressed in the agreement. Graf asked if that could fall under “may at its discretion allow.” McCool responded it could. He stated that it could be considered with the conditional use permit. Graf asked if the Commission should make a recommendation on whether or not to add the alternative language. McCool responded yes. Zopfi asked on the special exceptions paragraph for the solar collection system, is the ordi- nance referring to per device or per property for the cumulative area of six square feet or less. McCool responded the intent was per device but it is not clear how many devices there could be on the property. He suggested revising the language to read “six square feet per device and no more than X devices per lot.” Zopfi suggested that it be per property without a building permit or approval. Burbank stated that these could be looked at as an accessory structure, and most of the zoning districts limit the number accessory structures and suggest that it could be rolled into that. Haagsman asked if the six square feet is an arbitrary number or a standard size, and what happens if it is slightly larger. McCool stated that if it was a pedestrian walkway or right-of-way or traffic signal, the City would not be concerned about it, but if it was a residential or commer- cial application, six square feet would be the maximum. Johnson asked what size Hy-Vee is proposing. McCool responded that he does not have that information yet. Rostad stated that it is all going to be dependent on what is being powered. McCool stated that staff would look into that further before the ordinance goes to Council. Brittain opened the public hearing. Gary Borner, 8615 Lamar Avenue South, speaking on behalf of the Borner Family Farms, LLC and the Borner Family Trust, stated that they are exploring the idea of a solar farm. Their property is outside the MUSA boundary. He asked what level of participation does the City of Cottage Grove view the solar garden concept as it relates to ground-mounted on parcels larger Excerpts from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment – Case TA2015-025 Page 2 of 7 than five acres outside the MUSA. He appreciates the definitions listed in the ordinance and the addition of a decommissioning plan in the event of default or abandonment. Steven Geis, 4280 Scenic Lane, Woodbury, stated that he has farmed agricultural ground both within and outside the MUSA area. He stated that the proposed ordinance seems very restric- tive inside the MUSA area. He asked about the next steps in the process for this ordinance amendment and what will be allowed in the MUSA and outside the MUSA. McCool stated that this is the public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The Planning Com- mission will make a recommendation to the City Council, and if the recommendation is made tonight, the ordinance would go to the Council on October 7. The draft ordinance proposes that freestanding and large solar collection systems would not be allowed in the MUSA area of the City. The ordinance would require a minimum of five acres for freestanding anywhere within that area. Freestanding would not be allowed on urban lots because they are not a minimum of five acres. The ordinance would allow for large utility systems outside the urban service area by conditional use permit. McCool stated that this topic has been discussed at several Planning Commission meetings, an Environmental Commission meeting, and a joint workshop between the Planning and Environmental Commissions. Brittain believes the consensus is that inside the MUSA, there is significant interest in ensuring that the City can continue to expand. The ordinance does provide the opportunity for larger scale operations outside the MUSA. Graf stated that financially, the City and County invested money into infrastructure to facilitate development, which would not be consistent with solar farms. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Rostad commended staff for the work they have done on this ordinance, and thinks this is a sound text amendment regarding solar energy systems. He believes that land within the MUSA is too valuable allow larger scale solar farms. Rostad made a motion to approve the solar energy systems zoning text amendment, with the verbiage under C(1) on lines 113 through 116 and striking the verbiage for the alternative language that was provided. Graf seconded. Johnson wanted to make sure that as far as the six square feet meets what Hy-Vee is propos- ing. Brittain asked if Rostad and Graf would be okay to add to the motion that staff review current pending applications so there are no conflicts. Rostad agreed to allow the staff some flexibility to accommodate that particular use. Graf agreed, noting that he likes the restrictive- ness of the ordinance. Fox asked about adding language regarding MUSA changes. Rostad stated that he is okay with this ordinance as it exists with our current comprehensive plan. Graf stated that he doesn’t think we should forgo recommending approval, noting that the City Council can determine that if they so choose. He thinks having a plan in place sooner rather than later is better. Brittain concurred, noting that changes to the comprehensive plan take a lot of things into considera- tion, and he doesn’t feel that should hold up the implementation of this ordinance. Excerpts from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment – Case TA2015-025 Page 3 of 7 Fox asked if the bulk of the ordinance be recommended but any language regarding solar farms on five acres or more be deferred. Brittain stated that the motion is to include those. McCool stated that this proposed ordinance requires a conditional use permit for any solar collection system that is going to sell back electricity to a utility. Systems for private use only would need be allowed but would need to be in compliance with the development standards and a building permit would be required. Zopfi agreed that this ordinance should be approved as a starting point and asked if it could be amended as needed. McCool responded yes. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). EXCERPT FROM APPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 27, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7.1 City Code Amendment – Solar Energy Regulations McCool summarized the staff memorandum and requested direction from the Commission. Johnson asked if the City could be notified by the utility companies when a solar energy system was decommissioned or abandoned. McCool that would be a private arrangement between the property owner and the utility company, but they would be required to remove those facil- ities. Johnson stated that he would like the City to be notified if a system is being decommis- sioned so the removal could be enforced. Graf agreed that allowing solar farms in the MUSA would be non-beneficial as far as the com- prehensive plan, considering those areas are planned to be developed and the life of a solar farm could exceed that timeframe. He then asked about street facing panels. McCool stated that is referring to freestanding panels and if those would be allowed closer to the street than the house is or if there should be a minimum setback from the front property line. Graf was in support of establishing a minimum setback. Brittain expressed concern about glare from panels angled towards the street and suggested that screening be required. McCool stated that at the joint Planning and Environmental Commissions workshop on August 24, there will be representatives from the industry who can address those concerns. EXCERPT FROM APPROVED MINUTES OF THE JUNE 22, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.1 City Code Amendment – Solar Energy Regulations McCool summarized the staff memorandum and requested direction from the Commission. Johnson asked if the panels are installed above the shingles. McCool responded yes. Johnson asked if the homeowner would need to pull the shingles off and then put them back on. McCool responded that the framework for mounting those panels onto the roof would be attached to Excerpts from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment – Case TA2015-025 Page 4 of 7 the roof shingles. Johnson asked if a new permit would be required for replacing the solar panels if a new roof is installed. McCool stated that a building permit is required for all roof projects. Johnson then asked if solar panels would be allowed on properties adjacent to parks and trails. McCool responded that roof-mounted panels would be visible to everybody and freestanding panels would be allowed in all rear yards. Johnson asked why they would not be allowed in front of the house. McCool responded that accessory structures are not allowed in front yards. Rostad asked if staff received feedback from the Council and other Commissions regarding ground-mounted units in residential areas. He stated that he could not support ground- mounted units in residential areas, particularly allowing them to be up to the same size as accessory structures. He asked if anti-reflective covering limits the functionality of the solar panels, and suggested that if they are allowed in backyards, it should be mandated that they have an approved anti-reflective surface. McCool responded that the City currently allows for satellite dishes and wind turbines as freestanding structures in rear yards in all zoning districts and those have to meet the setbacks requirements for that zoning district. He stated that if the ordinance does not allow for freestanding solar panels, we may have to look at the wind turbine and satellite dish requirements. Rostad expressed concern about enforcement on glare com- ing off solar panel system. Olsen recommended to staff that there should be discussion with the Environmental Commission. He stated that the Environmental Commission toured 3M a couple years ago to look at their technology for solar panels, both building-mounted and free- standing. He thought it was very informative to learn more about the current technology and a lot of the questions that the Commission is asking were addressed in the presentation by 3M; he suggested asking 3M to address the Planning Commission. McCool suggested holding a joint meeting with the Environmental Commission and inviting representatives from the indus- try to provide information on solar panels and gardens. He noted that staff has not discussed this proposed ordinance with the City Council or other advisory commissions yet. Olsen stated that the City has solar panels on the rooftops of some city buildings. He does not believe the issues raised by the Planning Commission would cause any concerns. Fox expressed concern about the aesthetics of freestanding solar panels in residential yards. He would prefer allowing them only on roof tops and sides of buildings in urban residential districts. Zopfi stated that with the current technology, there should be no need for ground-mounted solar panels as rooftop mounted ones should be sufficient. He does not think freestanding panels should be allowed in urban residential neighborhoods. Those units could be allowed in rural areas or on parcels more than three acres. Haagsman stated that solar is a rapidly developing technology and that we should ascertain which way it is going to go – allowing panels on roofs or community solar gardens. He sug- gested making it attractive for community solar gardens to do business here. Johnson stated that homeowners associations could mandate that solar panels would not be allowed in their developments. Rostad agrees that homeowners associations may ban these but the City needs to look at protection for existing neighborhoods that don’t have associations. Burbank asked Rostad if he is opposed to allowing solar panels on urban residential lots only versus rural acreage lots. Rostad responded that was correct. Graff asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak. Excerpts from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment – Case TA2015-025 Page 5 of 7 John Kooyman, 6749 Geneva Avenue South, stated that he is interested in a standalone sys- tem on his five-acre property. He is concerned about language in the ordinance regarding percentage of roof coverage. He is looking at a ten kilowatt system that would be about 36 feet by 32 feet freestanding. He does not have enough roof area to put that many solar panels up. He asked that the ordinance allow properties with more acreage to be able to have free- standing units. He would not be opposed to screening requirements on the north side of the system. EXCERPT FROM APPROVED MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7.1 City Code Amendment – Solar Energy Regulations McCool summarized the staff memorandum and requested direction from the Commission. Johnson stated that the City needs to start this process so we are prepared. He thinks it needs to be “not very friendly” so that if somebody wants to do this, they have to show commitment to it. The ordinance needs to have strict maintenance requirements, and require that it has to be removed if the property owners move unless there is an agreement with the new owners that they are going to continue utilizing it. He suggested requiring permits and inspections for installation, and possibly an annual permit/inspection so the City knows if it is being used. Rostad agreed. He expressed concern about the impact of solar panels on the property values for neighboring properties, and does not want to allow freestanding solar panels in residential areas. Other suggestions include allowing them on rooftops and having a limit on the coverage amount on houses. Regarding commercial gardens, he believes companies should lease roof- top space instead of productive land. Fox supported solar for commercial areas but agreed that it would adversely impact residential property values. Zopfi agrees with the other Commissioners especially on residential. He suggested looking at prohibiting side wall installations and make it roof-top only in residential areas with limits to a certain percentage of the roof area. He also thinks the ordinance should cover all residential areas including agricultural because those areas could develop in the future. On the commer- cial side, it is viable to lease space on the exterior of buildings. He believes commercial and industrial areas can benefit from solar leases. Brittain agreed with Rostad that freestanding panels on small residential lots should not be allowed. He would like more information about the efficiency of the panels and how much roof space is needed before restricting the percentage of rooftop coverage. He also thinks there should be some protection from glare. Brittain stated that the ordinance should have language for rural residential areas, such as lot sizes, percentage of that land use, and development restrictions. He also suggested requiring a conditional use permit for larger areas so as devel- opment occurs there is the ability to have it removed. Excerpts from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment – Case TA2015-025 Page 6 of 7 Johnson and Rostad expressed concern about glare. Kline noted that the City of Rosemount’s ordinance has been in place since 1989 and asked if the City could have conversations with other cities and counties on the extent that their ordinances are used residentially and com- mercially as well as their experiences. Rostad suggested adding language about fixing any damage caused after the panels are removed. Graff suggested looking at roof pitch for glare issues, looking at how far apart houses are built from each other, and possibly having a mini- mum lot size where solar panels would be allowed. Zopfi asked if the city has an ordinance regarding wind generated energy. McCool responded yes, noting that it does allow for freestanding structures and to extend beyond the roofline. He stated that staff would do additional research and put together a draft ordinance for further discussion by the City’s Advisory Commissions. EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING 5.2 Solar Energy Regulations – City Code Amendment McCool summarized the staff memorandum on a proposed amendment regarding solar energy regulations and asked for feedback from the Commission. Klug commented that glare should be a top priority. McCool stated that the challenge with that is the sun moves at different angles during the year, but it does need to be addressed. Smith asked if there are any environmental issues that are associated with large scale installations or is it predominately trying to address things like glare and cosmetic issues. McCool stated that he will look at that. It was asked what the Planning Commission’s concerns are about freestanding solar panels on smaller lots, noting that Woodbury’s ordinance allows them on lots that are a minimum of 8,000 square feet. McCool responded that the primary concerns are that they are unsightly and could affect property values of neighboring properties. It was then asked if those are the same concerns for limiting the per- centage of roofs covered by solar panels. McCool responded that the percentage on residential roofs or walls could be either good or bad. Smith asked if there have been a lot of requests for freestanding structures and solar farms. McCool responded that several landowners have asked about it, and two companies have inquired where in the community they could be located. Our current city code does not address this use, which is the reason for this ordinance amendment. The companies want to be part of the process and they will be invited to make presentations at an upcoming workshop. McCool explained that the City has issued permits for roof and wall mounted solar panels that are accessory to the structure. If a residential property owner wanted a freestanding panel in their backyard, we would not issue a permit because the ordinance does not address it. Community solar gardens would be a land use issue but the City Code does not have any performance standards such as minimum and maximum acres, how many would be allowed, sight lines, setbacks, etc. Thiede asked if the solar panels on the top of the Business Enterprise Center (BEC) building is a permitted use because it is part of the structure. McCool responded yes, noting that the Planning Commission supports the idea of allowing them as an accessory use on commercial and industrial buildings. Klug asked about historical buildings. McCool responded that one community with an historic downtown area had a couple businesses propose panels on the buildings but their historic committee did not feel that fit in on that type of architecture. Many of the historic structures in our community are disappearing simply because it is costly to maintain them. The panels may help prevent them from disappearing if they can help subsidize some of the electricity. Klug asked if that would be a case where freestanding panels Excerpts from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment – Case TA2015-025 Page 7 of 7 could be allowed rather putting them on the historical structure. McCool responded that would be a good alternative. Most of the City’s historic structures are in rural areas, so it may not be an issue. McCool asked the Commission if they want to be part of this process. The Commission does want to be included. McCool reported that there will be another presentation to the Planning Commis- sion at their July 27 meeting, and after receiving further direction from the Planning Commission, the draft ordinance will be shared with the Environmental Commission at their August meeting. He also suggested holding a joint meeting between the Planning and Environmental Commis- sions. Klug asked if the ordinance would include thermal and wind. McCool responded that ther- mal would be included. The City currently has regulations on wind turbines, which are allowed in residential districts. Turbines are allowed to be freestanding, but the Planning Commission may amend that because they don’t want freestanding solar panels. The City Code also allows for freestanding satellite dishes.